Week 4: Discussion One and Two Student Response

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.)