Week 4: Discussion One and Two Student Response

· WednesdayMar 14 at 10:14am

· Manage Discussion Entry

· Throughout the discussions in the course, free speech and expression protected by the First Amendment. The only thing that will not be protected by the First Amendment is involvement of tyrannical language. According to Pember & Calvert (2014) “It is imperative to remember here that the First Amendment only protects Government censorship. The First Amendment thus does not apply or protect speech when a company like Facebook adopts a policy of censorship” (p. 40). The website called CampusTrashMouths.com seems to embrace any commentary for online viewers and users. Therefore, protecting their users by having the online communication remaining anonymous is for privacy reasons. However, when Doug posted the defamatory statement about Bob, it led to Bob using the CampusTrashMouths.com because he did not know who posted the statement. However, it will not be easy for Bob to retrieve Doug’s name from the website, primarily if that is the social media main content is for users to speak freely and be anonymous. The court ruling may be either one-sided to the decision of granting Bob, the winner of the case. As (Mandell et al., 2017) mentioned: “courts have continued to show an inclination to consider posts on social media platforms as more likely to be non-defamatory hyperbole or opinion, but as with all defamation cases, context is key.” Furthermore, if the defamatory statement is much of an opinion that Doug wrote, Bob would lose here because there are facts, publication, false of light, and proof to consider in court that he may lack (Pember & Calvert, 2014).

· Tolanda

· References

· Mandell, S. P., Baron, S. L., Salvato, C. M., Armendariz, D. E., Arishita, M. K., Borger, J. P., & ... Zansberg, S. D. (2017). Recent developments in media, privacy, defamation, and advertising law. Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal, 52(2), 531-564.

·

· Pember, D. R. & Calvert, C. (2014). Mass Media. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=voVzCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=pember+and+calvert+19+edition&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhzb3IiezZAhWRNd8KHSaOBeIQuwUIKjAA#v=onepage&q=laws&f=false

· ReplyReply to Comment

· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONTroy Neal

· WednesdayMar 14 at 8:52pm

· Manage Discussion Entry

· JRN410 – Blogging and Privacy Protection – Discussion 2 [Week 4]

· Troy Neal

· The internet since its inception has grown larger than anyone could have possibly imagined back when it was first introduced in the early 1990’s. However, with the evolution of the internet and its availability, internet laws have also evolved, although arguably still behind the times.

· CampusTrashMouth and their blog style website could be compelled to give up the identity of their anonymous bloggers, but it would be improbable in a court of law. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and is a piece of legislation that states, “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.” (US Congress, 1996) Basically stating in the case of CampusTrashMouth, they would be considered intermediates rather than publishers.

· In 1994 Prodigy, an early provider of online services was found to be legally liable for a defamatory anonymous posting on one of its message boards. However, in 1996 the United States Congress passed section 230 of CDA which is why Bob would most likely lose his pending lawsuit. Section 230 is a controversial piece of legislation because up until recently the court rulings had been very one-sided in favor of immunity for those who post anonymously online. With the ever-changing laws and growing concerns over online bullying section, 230 has come under considerable scrutiny and continues to be challenged with each and every new case.

· References

· United States Congress. (1996). 47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

· ReplyReply to Comment

· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONHugh Kinnett

· 9:31pmMar 18 at 9:31pm

· Manage Discussion Entry

· Troy,

· I enjoyed your discussion post. Several blogs allow people to post messages that trash other people. They are also used to spread rumors about people that they do not like. While I do not agree with the laws that are in place at the moment, the websites cannot be forced to reveal the name of the people that posted the messages. I agree that the laws need to be changed to allow the courts to force the websites to release the names of the anonymous posters. Do you believe the laws should be changed to battle bullying?

· Hugh Kinnett

· ReplyReply to Comment

· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONKendra Avery

· ThursdayMar 15 at 1:51pm

· Manage Discussion Entry

· With a website such as campustrashmouths.com, which is known to let people anonymously post about others, there seems to be little hope for Bob to reveal someone’s identity from the website. With the first amendment, it can let others voice their opinions on an online message board with little repercussions. The book states that, “While allegations of libel aimed at material carried online are fairly common, it is unusual for such allegations to result in full-blown lawsuits. These disputes typically are between private parties, and a settlement rather than a protracted court fight.” One of the reasons this website is popular is because it keeps the posters anonymous at all times. Bob did not like what was posted about him, so he wants to reveal the source, but unfortunately this website was made for things like this.

· If Bob were to try and sue the website, then one argument would be that there are plenty of other comments on that website pertaining to others that are in the same situation. The website is based on opinions of others rather than stating facts. This is where Bob’s weak spot would be considered. Bob would have to prove that this comment on a trash talking website caused him emotional distress or harm. “The intentional infliction of emotional distress is a new tort and punishes a wide range of conduct, including the publication or broadcast of material that is outrageous and causes severe emotional distress. Courts have made it extremely difficult for plaintiffs to win such suits by placing a substantial burden of proof on the injured party.”

·

· -Kendra

· Pember, D. R., & Calvert, C. (2015). Mass media law. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education

·

· ReplyReply to Comment

· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONTeresa Taylor Moore

· FridayMar 16 at 8:33pm

· Manage Discussion Entry

· Kendra:

· The key word we are dealing with here is "opinions". Every person has the right to their opinions about virtually anything and they enjoy some protection for the freedom to speak their minds about it. The problem becomes when that speech infringes upon the rights of others and causes some type of harm. What complicates issues for us in today's society is the use of social media and Internet websites where those opinions are often posted. You are right in that the website has a set of standards to protect itself from being dragged into every dispute by treating all cases in the same manner and not providing information about the posters.

· Dr. Taylor Moore

· ReplyReply to Comment

· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONHugh Kinnett

· 9:40pmMar 18 at 9:40pm

· Manage Discussion Entry

· Kendra,

· I enjoyed your discussion post. I agree that the suits have become hard to win. However, I do believe that the laws should be changed to help with the bullying that takes place in cyberspace. We are seeing news stories where kids are committing suicide because of bullying in cyberspace. On the other hand, I do believe that people have a right to their opinion. How would both be granted without infringing on the rights of another person? It is is a controversial topic.

· Hugh Kinnett

· ReplyReply to Comment

· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONSumiko Keil

· ThursdayMar 15 at 5:51pm

· Manage Discussion Entry

· Blogging and Privacy Protection

·

· Depending on the state, in most cases not likely, bloggers are not covered by the shield law. Bob can take campustrashmouths.com to court, however, seeing how this is a blog post, chances are there is a good they might be able to reveal the people that are harming other individuals. Seeing how they can’t control their comments, it may be a good idea for the person running the blog to make changes. I’ve seen it before when a person tries to sue the site. However, they didn’t have much luck with that. The only thing that can happen is having the site shut down, but then again, the name of the blog speaks for itself. Although we have the first amendment that covers reporters, I would not be sure about bloggers. According to Mataconis (2013), “Two separate points are being addressed here. The first one is whether bloggers, along with people who post on Twitter, Facebook, and other social media sites, have First Amendment rights. The answer to this question is, self-evidently, absolutely yes because, at the very least, these forms of communication would be considered a form of speech that would be protected under the First Amendment”. Although Doug is defaming someone else, I’m not sure how far the lawsuit would go. It all depends what he has said, and if he talked about his private life. If Bob was a celebrity, I do believe this would be a different case. The existence of so-called “shield laws” for the protection of free sources and confidential informants in journalism has largely followed the lead of similar legislation designed to protect informants in criminal proceedings (Jacquette, 2016).

· -MK

· References:

· Jacquette, D. Journalistic Ethics: Moral Responsibility in the Media, 1st Edition.

· Mataconis, D. 2013. Bloggers, Media Shield Laws, And The First Amendment. Retrieved from: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/bloggers-media-shield-laws-and-the-first-amendment/

· ReplyReply to Comment

· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONJacob Coldren

· ThursdayMar 15 at 8:37pm

· Manage Discussion Entry

· I love reading about shield law cases where the journalist pretty much tells judges or requesting entity to "sit on it." There are no shield laws currently in place that protect journalists when they refuse to reveal sources, but it has been known that judges will lean towards the journalist's side in order to protect free press. They know that if journalists give up sources they will no longer be trusted by the public and this can hinder the press as being a watchdog. Unfortunately, for Bob, this would most likely be the view of CampusTrashMouth.com and they would not reveal anyone's identity. If they release the identity of one person their entire internet empire would come crashing down like a pack of cards. The users would no longer think that their anonymity would be safe and therefore stop using the site. Bob could subpoena the site, but this most likely wouldn't go far since this wouldn't be deemed an extreme case. I have been in contact with law enforcement who have social media pages taken down when someone is arrested for heinous crimes.

· If poor ol' Bob decided to sue CampusTrashMouth.com for defamation he would lose the case most likely since he would have the burden to provide proof (Pember, D., & Calvert, C., 2013). Since CampusTrashMouth.com isn't the one who issued the statement and is just the platform used, Bob's case would against them would be very thin.

· Reference

· Pember, D. R., & Calvert, C. (2013). Mass Media Law (18th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

· ReplyReply to Comment

· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONTeresa Taylor Moore

· YesterdayMar 17 at 8:10am

· Manage Discussion Entry

· Jacob:

· The burden would definitely be on Bob in this case. As you mention, even if he can provide proof that the information is false and has caused harm, there is still the issue of the site owner providing information on the person that left the comment. Many Internet sites put terms in their privacy statements that clearly indicate that they are not responsible for comments and they do not collect identifiable information beyond the usernames that are available on the sites. So, even if they were ordered by a court to supply the information, it simply may not be readily available without some technological assistance from authorities.

· Dr. Taylor Moore

· ReplyReply to Comment

· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONHugh Kinnett

· ThursdayMar 15 at 9:22pm

· Manage Discussion Entry

· Since social media and blogging are relatively new media, laws are not stable about anonymous poster's. There are also questions about when to force the Online Service Provider (OSP) to release the name of anonymous poster's. According to Pember and Calvert (2013), "State courts across the country are grappling with the issue of anonymous postings and when to allow those harmed by them to force the OSP or host in question to disclose the poster's identity (p. 403). It would be ethical for the OSP to release the name of the person if the message is threatening the life of another person. On the other hand, Pember and Calvert (2013) said, "Communication on the Internet by non-professionals is often driven by emotion, not thought" (p. 237). Therefore, unless the message is threatening the life of another person, I do not see how the OSP can be forced to release the name of the poster.

· The OSP also cannot be punished for what users post. The OSP is thought to be the vendor. As Pember and Calvert (2013) stated, "......network-affiliated television stations are not responsible for defamatory content in the programming they transmit for the networks" (p. 159). An OSP is treated like a television network. Pember and Calvert (2013) went on to say, "These same rules have been applied to Internet publishers as well" (p. 159). It would be impossible to sue the website for what another individual posted on the site.

· If I owned a site that allowed the user to post anonymous messages, I would moderate the message boards for messages that are threatening the life of another person. However, I would not delete the messages posted by people when they are venting their feelings about another person. I would also keep the user anonymous. The First Amendment is the right for people to express themselves in a manner that is not threatening the safety of other people.

· References

· Pember, D. R. & Calvert, C. (2013). Mass media law (18th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

· ReplyReply to Comment

· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONLizette Francis

· ThursdayMar 15 at 9:27pm

· Manage Discussion Entry

· Bob vs. CampusTrashMouth.com

· Doug’s defamatory, anonymous post about Bob on the popular website called CampusTrashMouth.com, in the past, wouldn’t get a second thought from me. But after reading the first six chapters of our textbook, Mass Media Law, I can see the conflict. CampusTrashMouth.com obviously is not as huge a platform as say Facebook or Twitter. And even Facebook has found themselves (temporarily) in hot water for this subject matter. In a journal article regarding a parent attempting to sue Facebook for not preventing his underage daughter from creating numerous inappropriate profiles, Facebook’s defense was as follows: “‘"Facebook rejects the notion of broad censorship to prevent a single individual from creating a user account and profile. To the best of my knowledge, no feasible procedure... exists to outright restrict a particular individual's freedom to access a website… On top of this, such a procedure would categorically deny access to Facebook to millions of people and implicate privacy law concerns throughout the world. (2013)’”Although CampusTrashMouth.com’s website/blog is on a smaller scale than Facebook, they all fall into the category of the World Wide Web. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are rights we are granted by the Constitution; sometimes they work in our best interests, sometimes they are simply not in our favor.

· According to the video posted about the Colorado shooter and the NY attorney, the court cannot force anyone to reveal their sources. This decision went from a smaller CO court then was passed to a higher NY Supreme Court and they ruled in favor of the attorney due to Shield Law. Also, Pember & Calvert clarify, in Chapter 4- Libel: Establishing a Case, “A libelous remark might be made during an online real-time discussion among users connected to an OSP (Online Service Provider). Or defamation might be contained in a message sent to an e-mail addressee or a blog. If the OSP is the author or originator of the libelous message, it will be regarded as a publisher of the material in a libel suit and be treated as a newspaper publisher is treated. It is liable for the defamatory publication and can be sued for libel. More commonly, however, the OSP merely transmits what another party has posted on the system as an e-mail or a message on a bulletin board or on a Web site. In this case the system operator will be regarded as a vendor or distributor rather than a publisher.” Since the website isn’t the originator of the message, it is only the vendor; Doug, however, is the publisher. Therefore, it’s impossible for Bob to compel the website to reveal Doug’s identity. The reason Bob will lose if he tries to sue for defamation would be that he cannot technically show that the published lowered his reputation among a significant number of right-thinking people in the community. Also, the libelous/defamatory statements weren’t created by the website. “The bottom line is simply this: An online service provider is immune from a defamation suit for transmitting defamatory matter created by a third party, unless the Web site operator has in some way participated in the creation of the illegal content, or has designed the Web site in such a way that requires users who wish to post material to input illegal content. (2015)“

·

· McAleese, Deborah (2013, March 02). Facebook legal bid fails: Parents warned 'it's up to you' as court rejects father's protection plea. Belfast Telegraph. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/docview/1313921857/F6EC8531095F4312PQ/13?accountid=32521 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

· Pember, D. R. & Calvert, C. (2015). Mass media law (19th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

· ReplyReply to Comment

· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONGlenNeta Griffin

· ThursdayMar 15 at 11:40pm

· Manage Discussion Entry

· Is it possible for Bob to compel CampusTrashMouth.com to reveal Doug’s identity? Explain.

· Yes, it is possible for Bob to compel CampusTrashMouth.com to reveal Doug’s identity. In some cases, judges have ordered for websites to reveal the anonymous blogger via IP and e-mail address if they have posted something offensive, homophobic, or defamatory. “An interesting problem related to the matter of reporters protecting the identity of their sources is whether or not the parties in a lawsuit can force online service providers (OSPs) to reveal the names of people who post anonymous messages on the Web.”(Pember & Calvert, 2015) In some situations, the First Amendment right to engage in anonymous speech is not absolute and it can be overcome.

· If Bob instead sues CampusTrashMouth.com for defamation for posting Doug’s comments, what is the primary reason Bob will lose?

· A blogger is held to the same standards and have the same rights as a “traditional” news entity. They can’t be held liable for defamation unless they acted negligently. “While allegations of libel aimed at material carried online are fairly common, it is unusual for such allegations to result in full-blown lawsuits.” (Pember & Calvert, 2015) CampusTrashMouth.com is an anonymous website based on opinions and they disclosed that they would not reveal their sources. The site is also not exclusive to Bob. There are also other posts on the site, which puts them in the same situations. Like all journalists and publishers, bloggers sometimes publish information that other people don't want published. The website also could have had a review and privacy policy on the blog to protect them. Having this type of policy posted on your website let’s people know what you’re doing and how you’re doing it. It can also protect the web page. This is why Bob could lose.

· GlenNeta Griffin

·

· Reference:

· Pember, D. R., & Calvert, C. (2015). Mass media law. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education

· ReplyReply to Comment

· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONJohn Hansen

· FridayMar 16 at 12:25am

· Manage Discussion Entry

· Is it possible for Bob to compel CampusTrashMouth.com to reveal Doug’s identity? Explain.

· According to Pember and Calvert, “It is imperative to remember here that the First Amendment only protects Government censorship. The First Amendment thus does not apply or protect speech when a company like Facebook adopts a policy of censorship” (Pember and Calvert, 2014). Because of this I would think that the courts would feel obligated to have CampusTrashMouth.com reveal Doug to Bob who he would then have a defamatory case over I believe since the website can be seen as a blog and bloggers get the same protection as journalists and therefore can be in the same trouble as journalists. It really depends on how the court interprets bloggers. Most of the time though, I think public posts are looked at as opinions.

· If Bob instead sues CampusTrashMouth.com for defamation for posting Doug’s comments, what is the primary reason Bob will lose?

· I think that if Bob were to try to sue CampusTrashMouth.com for defamation for posting Doug’s comments, the primary reason he would lose is because according to Pember and Calvert, “network-affiliated television stations are not responsible for defamatory content in the programming they transmit for the networks" (Pember and Calvert, 2014). Unless someone who works for the website itself were to post the hateful, defamatory messages, the site itself can have action taken upon itself. Bob would be grasping for anything at that moment because at the end of the day I do not see any situation here where he wins.

· Reference

· Pember, D. R. & Calvert, C. (2013). Mass media law (18th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

· ReplyReply to Comment

· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONGerard Garcia

· FridayMar 16 at 12:29am

· Manage Discussion Entry

· One thing that has stayed constant throughout this course, is understanding one of our most basic and important rights which is our freedom of speech. As times have progressed and changed, that freedom of speech isn’t just extended to a physical person, or some kind of print material, but it also extends to almost all online platforms. Social media and most blogging sites are a few places where people regularly express thoughts and ideas to the world.

· In this case, Bob is filing a motion towards a blogging site named CampusTrashMouth as he believes the site is guilty of defamation. The site in particular is completely anonymous and allows users to post whatever they choose and people to comment anything they desire on any given post. What he ultimately wants is that the site reveals the identity of the person who made the defamatory comments about him.

· This would be a difficult case for Bob as he would have to go to great lengths prove a lot of things before the court would rule in his favor. Interestingly, anonymous speech is also protected by the first amendment, so trying to reveal that person’s identity is a difficult task in itself. Bob would also need to have enough evidence to provide to a judge that the post is in fact about him and is defamatory. These two reasons would be enough to rule against Bob and his case. Even though anonymous speech is protected, there is very much a fine line where things can go way to far. There have been many cases where cyber bullying has caused people to do outlandish things based off of people stating things that are untrue and anonymously. “Once a court decides the plaintiff has enough facts to make an initial showing of a defamation claim and can present facts that may defeat various First Amendment defenses, many courts will require the ISP or website to release the name if anyone fights it” (Crabtree, 2012).

· References

· Crabtree, T. (2012, July 20). How to Identify the Anonymous Online Defamer. Retrieved March 15, 2018, from https://www.emedialaw.com/how-to-identify-the-anonymous-online-defamer/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

· ReplyReply to Comment

· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONBarbara Grady

· FridayMar 16 at 6:44pm

· Manage Discussion Entry

· Week 4 discussion 2

· Barbara Grady

· Journalism Law

· Teresa Taylor Moore

· March 15, 2018

·

· Defamation is a deliberate false communication that damages the reputation of a person in the eyes of the public. In this case, Bob will compel CampusTrashMouth.com to reveal the identity for Doug to take legal action if unidentified Internet posters defame him; for instance, the case of Liskula Cohen and Skanks in NYC. (Taylor 2010). However, his right to subpoena CampusTrashMouth.com to disclose the identity of the posters will be considered against the Internet posters' First Amendment right to remain unknown. He should demonstrate that at least one of the claims he will proclaim against the Internet posters has legal merit and that he has taken sound steps, without success, to identify and notify theCampusTrashMouth.com and need the court's subpoena power for that purpose.

· However, there should also be exceptions regarding remarks that violate intellectual. The law that protects US news websites from losing a lawsuit over the content of their comment spaces is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (Antoniou, & Akrivos, 2017). It states that “No provider of a communicating computer service shall be treated as the originator or speaker of any material provided by another information content provider.” including websites and social media platforms — cannot be held liable for the consequences of third-party content. Example, MIS Limited v Google and others [2009] EWHC 1765. Therefore, based on this comment, it’s most probably Bob will lose the lawsuit in case he sues CampusTrashMouth.com for defamation.

·

· References

· Taylor, M. W. (2010). A Blogger, Google, and a Skank: An Analysis of Whether Google Has a Fiduciary Obligation to Its Bloggers. W. Va. L. Rev., 113, 1001.

· Antoniou, A. K., &Akrivos, D. (2017). Indecent images and defamatory meaning in late modern societies: taking ordinary, reasonable readers outside their ivory tower. Journal of Media Law, 9(2), 155-172.

· Barendt, E. (2017). Defamation Law.

· ReplyReply to Comment

· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONCharisse Gamboa

· YesterdayMar 17 at 11:50pm

· Manage Discussion Entry

· “It is imperative to remember here that the First Amendment only protects Government censorship. The First Amendment thus does not apply or protect speech when a company like Facebook adopts a policy of censorship” (Pember, D.R. & Calvert, C. 2014).

· Reference

· Pember, D. R. & Calvert, C. (2014). Mass Media. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?

· Is it possible for Bob to compel CampusTrashMouth.com to reveal Doug’s identity? Explain.

· Bob is up against the First Amendment, as well as the company’s privacy policies and laws. There are specifications that the website has to protect themselves from such matters. Obviously, this type of blog site is bound to run into legal issues, defamation, and libel cases, so the company is prepared for any litigation. He may be able to sue for emotional damages, defamation, or being presented in false light. However, the case may not even proceed due to the terms/agreements of the website. If he plans to sue, then he must understand it can be a very long process, as others may be in the same situation as he is. The bottom line is, these type of freedom to express blog sites, are open freely to the public and anonymous. Unfortunately, there is not much of a case to force the company to reveal Doug’s identity.

· If Bob instead sues CampusTrashMouth.com for defamation for posting Doug’s comments, what is the primary reason Bob will lose?

· There is no proof of defamation by the company themselves. A user member (Doug) has posted comments about Doug, not the company. Every member understands the requirements before reading or posting, and the website is not liable for any results or opinions of others.

· ReplyReply to Comment