[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.I intend to leave the reader with the conclusion that novelty andfree speech claims have probably protected the Internet from legal regula-tion in a manner that has generated excessive costs to the targets of offensivespeech and perhaps to Internet entrepreneurs as well.Non-anonymity, oridentifiability, is one route to reducing these costs; privileging a notice-and-takedown policy is another.The Internet and Its CompetitorsThe Internet is hardly the medium with the highest density of anonymousor offensive communications.A high school s bathroom stalls may be thewinner in that category.But Facebook, or a similar Internet site visitedand easily discovered by the same high school s students, may well be thecanvas of choice for the contemporary offensive graffitist.It is useful thento compare these, and then other media, in order to think about the legal 52 The Internet and Its Problemsenvironment in which juvenile as well as mature but false communicationstake place.Environments, or media, can be compared from the perspective of thelaw or from that of the communicator.For one who wishes to communicatenasty remarks about a classmate, employer, or competitor, considerations ofsocial standing, legal consequences, audience size, interactvity, and effortare all likely to play roles.A juvenile posting will have real bite whetheron an Internet site, on handbills left around a building, or on the bathroomwall if something more than a simple slur is produced.Details can generatea defamation claim, unless author and publisher can remain unknown, andthey also make possible the communication of socially useful, if painful,information. Amy X is a slut 1 is quintessentially juvenile, especially as asignal of interest, and no fun for Amy X or her true friends to read.Still, itis not clear that anyone suffers grave harm, not just because of the familiaraphorism about sticks and stones but also because of the irony that themore commonplace such taunts are, the less seriously anyone will takethem.One response to the slut slur is for one s friends to shout out a thou-sand claims of that status attached to all sorts of people in order to diminishfurther the value of the first communication.The alternative and not un-known reaction is for an informed or well-intentioned passerby to attemptto expunge the offensive message so that it is not further communicated.Such short messages are typical of bathroom wall postings, and do noteven attempt to convey much information.In contrast, Y stole $150 fromme or Z loved a dog behind Bartlett Hall, are slight rewordings of ob-served markings, and I hesitate to be so crude as to refer to them in printexcept that they are unusual.The details make these claims slightly morememorable and even credible, though not for the usual reason that detailsfacilitate falsification.The claim that Y is a thief, if true, is a good exampleof an anonymous insult that might provide socially useful informationeither because it deters other thieves, who fear shaming, or because itwarns others to be wary of Y.The same cannot easily be said for the othercomment.I hesitate to label these as unusual examples of effective juvenilecommunications because we do not know the authors aims or knowledge.Each author ran the small risk of attracting vandalism or defamationcharges, or perhaps even revenge by an informed target.Revenge may wellbe the most serious risk; it is ironic that the target will have more successin identifying the culprit if the original claim is detailed and true, or at leastbased on some real events.I return to accuracy and social utility below, but The Internet s Anonymity Problem 53for now let us assume that the communications are exaggerations or out-right falsehoods and, at best, a juvenile reaction to something about Y or Zthat the writer finds distasteful.When the offensive graffitist uses the bathroom wall he runs up againstthe medium s constraints; the Internet now provides a superior medium forone who wishes to spread juvenile or malicious speech.One can scratch orspray paint a wall for a variety of reasons, but the audience for that speechis limited, and the greater the offense with respect to both content and au-dience, the more quickly the communication will be erased.Moreover, thejuvenilist who works on the bathroom wall with paint or knife must workquickly to avoid detection and prosecution.Thus, a longer and often morecredible message is hard to cast.In obvious contrast, the juvenilist on theInternet is empowered by the ability to communicate in leisurely fashionand to do so from afar.The old-fashioned graffitist risks disciplinary actionin a school or workplace, and police attention elsewhere, because in a realenvironment the graffitist has committed a crime namely vandalismeven as he is open to a claim of defamation [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl przylepto3.keep.pl
.I intend to leave the reader with the conclusion that novelty andfree speech claims have probably protected the Internet from legal regula-tion in a manner that has generated excessive costs to the targets of offensivespeech and perhaps to Internet entrepreneurs as well.Non-anonymity, oridentifiability, is one route to reducing these costs; privileging a notice-and-takedown policy is another.The Internet and Its CompetitorsThe Internet is hardly the medium with the highest density of anonymousor offensive communications.A high school s bathroom stalls may be thewinner in that category.But Facebook, or a similar Internet site visitedand easily discovered by the same high school s students, may well be thecanvas of choice for the contemporary offensive graffitist.It is useful thento compare these, and then other media, in order to think about the legal 52 The Internet and Its Problemsenvironment in which juvenile as well as mature but false communicationstake place.Environments, or media, can be compared from the perspective of thelaw or from that of the communicator.For one who wishes to communicatenasty remarks about a classmate, employer, or competitor, considerations ofsocial standing, legal consequences, audience size, interactvity, and effortare all likely to play roles.A juvenile posting will have real bite whetheron an Internet site, on handbills left around a building, or on the bathroomwall if something more than a simple slur is produced.Details can generatea defamation claim, unless author and publisher can remain unknown, andthey also make possible the communication of socially useful, if painful,information. Amy X is a slut 1 is quintessentially juvenile, especially as asignal of interest, and no fun for Amy X or her true friends to read.Still, itis not clear that anyone suffers grave harm, not just because of the familiaraphorism about sticks and stones but also because of the irony that themore commonplace such taunts are, the less seriously anyone will takethem.One response to the slut slur is for one s friends to shout out a thou-sand claims of that status attached to all sorts of people in order to diminishfurther the value of the first communication.The alternative and not un-known reaction is for an informed or well-intentioned passerby to attemptto expunge the offensive message so that it is not further communicated.Such short messages are typical of bathroom wall postings, and do noteven attempt to convey much information.In contrast, Y stole $150 fromme or Z loved a dog behind Bartlett Hall, are slight rewordings of ob-served markings, and I hesitate to be so crude as to refer to them in printexcept that they are unusual.The details make these claims slightly morememorable and even credible, though not for the usual reason that detailsfacilitate falsification.The claim that Y is a thief, if true, is a good exampleof an anonymous insult that might provide socially useful informationeither because it deters other thieves, who fear shaming, or because itwarns others to be wary of Y.The same cannot easily be said for the othercomment.I hesitate to label these as unusual examples of effective juvenilecommunications because we do not know the authors aims or knowledge.Each author ran the small risk of attracting vandalism or defamationcharges, or perhaps even revenge by an informed target.Revenge may wellbe the most serious risk; it is ironic that the target will have more successin identifying the culprit if the original claim is detailed and true, or at leastbased on some real events.I return to accuracy and social utility below, but The Internet s Anonymity Problem 53for now let us assume that the communications are exaggerations or out-right falsehoods and, at best, a juvenile reaction to something about Y or Zthat the writer finds distasteful.When the offensive graffitist uses the bathroom wall he runs up againstthe medium s constraints; the Internet now provides a superior medium forone who wishes to spread juvenile or malicious speech.One can scratch orspray paint a wall for a variety of reasons, but the audience for that speechis limited, and the greater the offense with respect to both content and au-dience, the more quickly the communication will be erased.Moreover, thejuvenilist who works on the bathroom wall with paint or knife must workquickly to avoid detection and prosecution.Thus, a longer and often morecredible message is hard to cast.In obvious contrast, the juvenilist on theInternet is empowered by the ability to communicate in leisurely fashionand to do so from afar.The old-fashioned graffitist risks disciplinary actionin a school or workplace, and police attention elsewhere, because in a realenvironment the graffitist has committed a crime namely vandalismeven as he is open to a claim of defamation [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]