We’d all throw ourselves in front of an oncoming train to protect freedom of speech -- until it offends us, right? Two court rulings this week give us a reason to examine the First Amendment.
First, the U.S. Supreme Court essentially upheld the right of hate mongers to protest at military funerals. We all gasped for air when we heard that ruling. What can we do about it? Support the Patriot Guard in their efforts to stage “thank you” processions at military funerals. And when we see a man or woman in uniform, thank them for their service. That other ugly element is just a reminder that not all Americans are classy high road travelers.
A second court ruling this week is more likely to have an impact on average folks like us -- those of us who visit favorite blogs and social media sites several times a day to see what everyone’s talking about. It brings the potential to expose those who post anonymous comments.
An Indiana judge has ruled that news outlets can be ordered to share information such as an ip address or login about those who post comments to their sites.
The case landed in court when an Indianapolis businessman was criticized on sites operated by several newspapers and TV stations. He wasn’t able to respond to ( I mean, take legal action against) his critics directly because their comments were anonymous. Now thanks to this court ruling, he may soon know who threw mud on his face. Those media outlets have deep pockets and are likely to appeal the ruling, but make no mistake: the door has been opened.
This is not a ruling I applaud. I think it’s a dangerous step that could have a chilling impact. People may stop commenting and confidential sources may be afraid to come forward.
In responsible media outlets, there is a big difference between anonymous trash-talkers and confidential sources. Most media managers must know who the source is and must be able to vouch for the veracity of the information being provided. This is a painstaking process carried out well by responsible news outlets.
But many of these same outlets have turned their backs on the online comment sections of their websites. The feeling is that policing them is censorship -- not to mention that there are too many comments on many sensitive stories to keep up with!
I’ve been on the receiving end of anonymous comments. Many of them were at most hurtful. Some were not founded in fact and were damaging. Last year I invested time getting postings removed that could have damaged my boss -- these postings inaccurately targeted the reasons he’d hired a news anchor. I also protected stolen property of behind the scenes studio activity that was years old when it was posted anonymously, and would not have reflected well on our business. We still don’t know who was responsible, and at this point, it’s moot. But those experiences reinforced a policy I’ve always had: I post what I own, and can defend. And I sign my name to it.
Here in Portland, we know how tempting it is to go online and say whatever we want. Since Kyron Horman vanished last June, media websites welcomed hundreds of new visitors daily, who weighed in on whether Kyron’s stepmother was involved. She has been accused of murder, infidelity and other horrible actions by people who don’t know her, who don’t have the evidence to prove it and who won’t leave their names. As the focus of the investigation, Terri Horman’s current legal problems are too big for her to worry about going after these anonymous posters.
But the Indiana businessman had the time and the resources. And he won.
Think about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment