Free Internet Tv 3.2

Reputations can be ruined on the Internet and, all too often, the anonymous authors of scurrilous attacks can't be traced or identified.

In seconds, cybersurfers from Massachusetts to Mali can retrieve more than 12,000 references to Rep. Gary A. Condit (D-Calif.), many as blunt as one that begins, "Missing: Gary Condit's character.... "But one particularly scurrilous Internet report about the lawmaker illustrates what many see as a serious and growing problem concerning the Internet -- a flow of unbridled defamation.

NewsMax.com columnist and former U.S. congressman John LeBoutillier wrote an article about Condit that was posted online for most of one day in July. It was a hearsay account, accusing the representative of sordid sexual activity and complicity in murder. The site's keepers ultimately killed the column.

"Whatever you say on the Internet cannot be retracted by simply pulling it back," says David H. Peirez, a communications-law specialist with the Garden City, N.Y., firm of Reisman, Peirez and Reisman. "A book or newspaper can pull back -- they can print a retraction that largely negates the insult or mistake. But put something on the Internet, and it's on for good. If I send you something and you delete and trash it, it's still on the Internet somewhere."

As an elected official and public figure linked to a news event, Condit's right to privacy is limited. The point is, as things now stand, the Internet leaves everyone vulnerable to similar, widely disseminated malice. Is that an acceptable price for Internet freedom? The cost sometimes is high for victims, who rarely can identify their anonymous tormentors or seek restitution. Some obtain redress, however, and their cases show the nasty ways in which some use the Internet's freedom:

* Charles Neville of Kennebunkport, Maine, wrote an essay to the world, ranting about a woman with whom he claims he had sexual relations. He accused her of being a heavy drinker and revealed personal details about her reportedly gathered by shadowing her and her family. Reporters who read the screed before it was removed said Neville proclaimed he was publishing it because it would cause the woman pain. Police did nothing about the Web posting; however, they charged Neville with stalking the woman.

* Jonathan R. Oppenheimer, a pathologist, adopted the name "fbiinformant" and posted messages on Yahoo accusing Sam D. Graham Jr., then-chairman of the Emory University School of Medicine's urology department, of accepting kickbacks from a urology company. Graham subsequently gave up his post. He eventually cleared his name and won a $675,000 award from Oppenheimer, the first libel victory against someone who anonymously posted defamatory statements on the Internet. Tracking down Oppenheimer took more than eight months.

* Teen-ager Ian Lake of Milford, Utah, claimed in vulgar, obscenity-filled Internet postings that certain girls in his class were "sluts," that one school official was "the town drunk" and that certain faculty members were incompetent. Police arrested him on charges of criminal libel. The boy's case is wending its way through Utah's courts.

"Any freedom can be abused and will be," says Harvard Law School professor John Zittrain. "There is more of everything on the Internet. More bad speech, more good speech, more persons with no special expertise writing on topics they know nothing about. But crafting laws that rule out abuse while allowing freedom is hard."

David Post, a professor at Temple University Law School, concurs. "We're now seeing a complicated social phenomenon of some significance," he says. "There are differences between the Internet and other media, and we are now discovering what those differences are. The courts are wrestling with this slowly. I can't say the courts recognize the differences yet."

The difference lies in the Internet's accessibility, which allows an estimated 110,825,000 users in the United States and 89,012,000 in the rest of the world to publish their words. Their audience is worldwide and, if the writers choose, they can conceal their identity. Special software programs guard the messages of con men, malcontents, molesters and vindictive scribblers whose words are available 24 hours a day. Never before have so many had such license. Newspapers and broadcast networks have middlemen "who know what they are doing and know about libel laws," Zittrain says. "You don't have open-mike night on CBS News."

Post, Temple University's Internet law specialist, served as local defense counsel for Web columnist Matt Drudge, who was sued by former White House aide Sidney Blumenthal for $30 million. Blumenthal dropped the lawsuit after Drudge apologized for an unsubstantiated and false report that Blumenthal was a wife beater. But the lawsuit raised what lawyers insist is a vitally important and groundbreaking issue. Blumenthal and his wife, Jacqueline, included in their lawsuit charges against America Online (AOL), which presented the Drudge column. AOL argued it was not liable because it does not act as a publisher and did not edit the Drudge article. A federal judge agreed.

In fact, federal law spares these Internet service providers (ISPs) from culpability when people use their service to publish defamatory statements. By contrast, if a newspaper published an article considered libelous, both the paper and the easily identified author could be sued. The author of an Internet posting can be determined only with the cooperation of the ISP, and ISPs are loath to cooperate. "Besides, the authors are likely to be judgment-proof" Zittrain adds. "Unlike a large newspaper or publisher, they don't have much money. And they may be far away."

Attorneys see this as a loophole. "I believe you protect people's freedom to say bad things until it becomes defamation, but then you treat it as you treat defamation in all other media," says Kimberlianne Podlas, an Internet-law professor at Bryant College in Smithfield, R.I. "We should rethink laws that protect Internet service providers."

But some think even that statement is malicious. The nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology, for example, calls for an open "user-controlled" Internet and for the "free flow of information." Such groups as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union are working to keep Internet users' names private. Yet these groups, too, could become cyber-assault victims.

As Zittrain asks: "The technologies that allow subversive speech to get into China also allow stock manipulation in the United States and the proliferation of derogatory statements. But is the damage to be caused an argument for more control?"

RELATED ARTICLE; `Family Hour' Further Compromised

The family television hour has become even less family-friendly, according to the fifth review of prime-time TV content by the watchdog group Parents Television Council.

Overall, there were 8.41 instances of objectionable material per hour during this season's 8 to 9 p.m. "family hour," twice as high as in 1998. Of the six networks reviewed, United Paramount Network (UPN) had the worst track record, with 18.1 offensive incidents per hour. CBS had the least amount of objectionable content at 3.2 incidents per hour.

While the networks aired less sexual content, shows made more references to sexual activities that once were taboo during the family hour-- references to homosexuality, oral sex, pornography, masturbation, genitalia and practices such as group sex.

There were 2.57 incidents of foul language per hour, up 78 percent from the previous year, when there were 1.44 incidents per hour. Violence also escalated, from 1.62 incidents per hour in the 1999-2000 season to 2.75 incidents in 2000-2001.

Recently, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation released a survey on the V-chip, which has been installed in new TV sets since 2000. Fifty-three percent of parents with a new TV didn't realize they had a V-chip, the survey found. Of parents who knew they had a V-chip, 36 percent were using it to block certain shows.

By Cheryl Wetzstein

COPYRIGHT 2001 News World Communications, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group

Get Skiing &Snowboarding Packages. - Sponsored Link
Ad - View Package Specials &Book Now!