Information Explosion - Assignment Example

Information Explosion Introduction Information explosion has occurred with the wide and global reach of the internet. All categories of information are now available on the internet in electronic form with rapid communication and easy accessibility. Internet has shrunk the world remarkably. While most of the information remains socially acceptable some of it works to wound the accessing society at large by offending the sensibilities viz. a substantial amount on information befitting the obscenity dimensions is placed on internet. Similarly internet has been used both as an anonymous and identified media to attack and vilify people, states, organizations etc. While some of this vilification might have concrete basis oe simple retaliation; a good proportion of it is unprovoked with an attempt to sensationalize and target specific persons and organizations leading to defamation claims. In the paragraphs that follow we examine the treatment of obscenity and defamation issues on internet in jurisprudence, supplanted with case laws. Obscenity The concept of intellectual freedom is a draw-out from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. This amendment guarantees freedom of speech by mandating that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech” (US) An individual’s right of free speech is, however, circumscribed. Very many forms of speech – e.g. defamation and obscenity – do not enjoy protection under the First Amendment. American jurisprudence has also afforded different levels of protection for speech depending on the method by which it is communicated or transmitted. A definition of obscene material was provided in the English case of Regina v. Hicklin (1868) by proposing that material is obscene if it corrupts the minds of those who are open to immoral influences. Most obscenity laws were based on this definition until 1957 when a US court in United States v. Roth defined obscene material as “material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest,". In 1966 US Supreme Court in Woman of Pleasure v. The Attorney General (1966) added an angle to the obscenity test that the material must also be “utterly without redeeming social value". This diluted the law and made First Amendment protection available even to that material which entirely lacked literary value. Only with the case law Miller v. California (1973) did the US supreme court reigned in the “utterly without redeeming social value” dimension and redefined the present three stage obscenity test. The Supreme court stated that in order to ascertain if any material is obscene, the jury must reckon (1) whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest; (2) whether the work depicts or describes sexual conduct (defined by state statute) in a patently offensive way; and (3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. In United States v. Thomas (1966) Robert and Carleen Thomas, owners of a computer bulletin board system were convicted for knowingly distributing and transporting obscene material in interstate commerce over internet. The jury had applied the Miler obscenity test in this case. In Miller case the Court insisted that juries should use a local standard to determine the prurient interest component, rather than applying any national standard. However in Pope v. Illinois. (1987) the “serious value” dimension was tested to a national standard. More importantly despite evolution of the law over the years, US courts continue to find interpretation and application of obscenity law arduous. Solution appears to be determining a national standard carefully considering the tastes and inclinations of internet users. Defamation Differences exist between US defamation law, on the one hand, and English and Canadian law, on the other. These differences cropped up with the first amendment to the US Constitution and became more pronounced with the 1964 US Supreme Court decision in New York Times v. Sullivan. 1996 enactment of Communications Decency Act made US cyber law even more permissive giving commercial interactive computer service providers immunity from liability for third parties' materials. Canadian law provides that if a person (individual, corporation, society, etc.) says (slander) or writes (libel) something damaging (not trivial) to the reputation of another person (individual, corporation, society, etc.) then the words are said to be defamatory.  In order to cause action the words must have been communicated to a third person. When thus communicated, Canadian Law (unlike US Law) often takes on three rebuttable presumptions viz. the words are false, the words are malicious and the words caused damages. Once communication of words, including over the internet, is proven plaintiff need not prove anything beyond and presumptions get to work. It is generally a set principle that all involved in communicating a libel are liable. In the 1997 US Court of Appeal case of Zeran v. America OnLine, Inc., the plaintiff sued the defendant internet service provider (“ISP”) for defamation due to large delay in removing defamatory messages posted by a third party, refusing to post retractions, and failing to screen for similar postings thereafter.  The Court barred the claim under Communications Decency Act providing protection to ISP from third parties' acts. In glaring contrast to the US decision, an ISP in the 1999 English High Court case of Godfrey v. Demon Internet Ltd. was found liable in defamation after failing to remove defamatory remarks in a posting to a Newsgroup forum. Removal request had come from the plaintiff who was alleged to have been the author of the posting. In the US case of Blumenthal v. Drudge, Drudge as an internet web site author made allegations regarding spousal abuse by a new White House recruit Sidney Blumenthal. This report was emailed to website subscribers and to AOL for transmission. Despite retraction Drudge was not freed from liability but AOL got the benefit of protection under Communications Decency Act. Often questions are raised as to in which jurisdiction defamatory claims may be raised for internet related issues. It is mostly settled practice that the plaintiff can choose to raise action in any jurisdiction where the defendant is domiciled or carries on business, or in which the tort was committed. In 1996 a decision in Heroes, Inc. v. Heroes Foundation, of the District Court for the District of Columbia found jurisdiction as the defendant had an Internet homepage that solicited donations through a toll- free number from donors. Similarly in Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold, Inc the Missouri District Court found it had jurisdiction over a California operator of an Internet site that maintained a mailing list of Internet users for advertising and knew that its information would be transmitted globally, including Missouri. Websites have been accepted to be publications and contents displayed are publications and are liable for defamatory claims and operators have to be watchful of sensibilities of all potential browsing public. Works Cited U.S. Constitution. Amendment. I. Cases Cited Regina v. Hicklin, 3 L.R.-Q.B. 360 (1868). United States v. Roth, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure v. The Attorney General, 383 U.S. 413 (1966). Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701, 705 (6th Cir. 1996). Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497 (1987). New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). Zeran v. America OnLine, Inc., 129 F. 3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997). Godfrey v. Demon Internet Ltd., Q.B. (U.K.), Strand, London (1998). Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998). Heroes, Inc. v. Heroes Foundation, 958 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1996). Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold, Inc., 947 F. Supp. 1328 (E.D. Mo. 1996). Read More