Freedom of speech is a right our nation was founded on and one that still ignites passion. A slew of lawsuits threatening this right have prompted courts to reexamine the laws that protect Web sites from legal action over user-posted content.
The 1996 Telecommunications Act is the Web’s main defense against this type of lawsuit. Section 230 of the act states that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
Basically, a Web site is not liable for content submitted by an outside user. This makes it so people can’t hold Wikipedia liable for incorrect entries or Craigslist liable for allegedly discriminatory housing posts or online dating or roommate-finding sites liable for containing fake profiles or information. However, people are finding legal loopholes, including intellectual property laws.
The concept of intellectual property rights played an important role in the case of a New Hampshire woman who sued the FriendFinder network because it allowed a fake and sexually explicit profile of her to be posted repeatedly on their site.
The judge ruled on the side of FriendFinder but refused to overlook that the re-publication of the bogus profile invaded her intellectual property rights.
When Congress was drafting section 230 of the Telecommunications Act, it specifically noted that the Web sites were still liable in cases “pertaining to intellectual property.”
This poses a major problem for Internet companies, as there are no set guidelines as to what constitutes intellectual property.
Additionally, laws on intellectual property and defamation vary from state to state, so sites would have to reevaluate their policies based on the state with the most conservative laws on the subject.
Of course, this law has not stopped people from trying to sue these sites over user-generated content. Smaller Web sites may easily buckle under the financial strain of hiring a lawyer and going to court, even if they end up winning.
Some sites are simply unable to police everything that is posted. Craigslist allows users to “flag” inappropriate posts, Wikipedia can be edited by other users, and Facebook and MySpace allow creators of profiles to delete comments.
However, some sites have less rigorous expectations of their contributors. Gossip sites thrive on anonymity, and libelous posts elude legal action under the Telecommunications Act. Though users can request that certain content be removed, people can re-post ugly gossip and personal information about others.
In general, people should think twice before posting harmful things on the Internet. Though there is no legal precedent for it, there is a moral and ethical responsibility that we all have to preserve freedom of speech by not abusing it.
The Internet will not be able to remain a bastion of free expression if it is mired in lawsuits.
Web sites should also strive to keep user-generated content within the general boundaries of decency. We applaud sites such as Craigslist and Facebook, which allow users to point out inappropriate, illegal or unhelpful posts. Web sites and the people who post on them should respect the people who use freedom of speech responsibly and not jeopardize it for the rest of us by claiming inappropriate and private information about people.