Skip to main content

Internet Becomes a Breeding Ground for Defamation and Libel

The rise of the internet has opened the door for a new generation of people, who communicate all of their thoughts and feelings for the whole world to see. As most people would agree, this is a radically different form of communication than that of our ancestors. It seems as if the days of face to face communication (gasp) are over and so we have moved on to hiding behind our iPhones and laptops, becoming brave behind our invisible shields. It seems as though, we feel empowered behind these mobile devices, like they are some sort of mask that gives us the bravery to say things that some are too cowardly to say to another persons face. In fact, I believe the internet, social media in particular, has caused an astonishing rise in the libel and defamation of people because it has given us this platform that lets us reach a whole world full of strangers without being held accountable to the extent that we would if it was in person. Blogs especially are a breeding ground for potentially libelous statements about people, as it is all to easy to leave a comment about another person that can be damaging to their reputation. Even if someone is not intentionally putting out libelous statements to hurt someone, they are unintentionally saying defaming things about another individual over a media outlet, which has many repercussions for that person.
Just recently, I read an article about a photography business owner who was suing a couple for defamation of her business. She stated that the couple she took wedding photos for knew that there was a small fee involved when they signed the contract, and when it was time to receive their photos they still had not paid the small fee. They argued with the photographer about this fee, even though they signed the contract and were full aware about it. Eventually, the photographer dropped the fee as a curtesy for the couple. Regardless of this gesture, they went online and spread to everyone that her business was a scam and she was a crook. The defamation of her name caused the photographer to go out of business. A few years later she sued the couple for defamation and won in a court case that settled with a payment of $1.08 million dollars to her. This is an example of how libel and defamation are taken as very serious offenses that have large repercussions. The internet is a double edge sword because it is either easier to track someone when they are doing these acts, or it is possible to make you completely anonymous. The scary part about the internets role in the spread of libel and defamation, is it helps someone who is anonymous not be held reliable for their actions, which can destroys another persons life. Even if these things they are saying are lies or are manipulated to seem worse than they really are, in the case of the couple, it can destroy someone else career or reputation and should not be held lightly.

NOLO. Social Media and Online Defamation. n.d. <https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/social-media-online-defamation.html>.
Zhang, Michael. Wedding Photographer Wins $1.08M in Defamation Suit Against Couple. n.d. <https://petapixel.com/2017/08/01/wedding-photographer-wins-1-08m-defamation-suit-couple/>.

Comments

  1. The Internet is an amazing tool. It is a resource that, as you say, “opened the door for a new generation of people, who communicate all of their thoughts and feelings for the whole world to see.” However, we must remember that just as tools enable us to complete seemingly impossible tasks, they can also become weapons if placed into the wrong hands. For example, during our first week of class we read an article on the use of Twitter by ISIS (and now other groups related to neo-Nazism and white nationalists) to spread their beliefs and recruit new followers. Moving back to the present, we are now discussing how anyone can post a defamatory review online that can destroy a company’s reputation and run it out of business. Between these two types of malicious content, one would think that social media platforms would develop strategies to block defamatory and hate speech. However, for the most part they still refuse to do so in the name of the Freedom of Speech.

    Incidentally, your post reminded of an article published by the Washington Post that I read the other day. The article is titled “Obama tried to give Zuckerberg a wake-up call over fake news on Facebook,” and it discusses how Russia used Facebook to advance Trump’s standing in the presidential election. At first Mark Zuckerberg insisted that his social media platform wasn’t a source of the fake news, but last Thursday he came forward and admitted that Facebook had been exploited during the 2016 Presidential Election (Entous et al). At last one of these social media giants concedes that their platform’s power was abused. Furthermore, the authors of this article state that, “The growing political drama over these issues has come at a time of broader reckoning for Facebook, as Zuckerberg has wrestled with whether to take a more active role in combating an emerging dark side on the social network…” (Entous et al). Hopefully, this means that Facebook will follow through with their statements and actively promote positive change on their platform. Perhaps their actions will encourage other social media outlets such as Twitter to take more action against fake news, terrorist propaganda, and maybe even defamatory speech.

    This would be the best-case scenario in my mind, for I believe that if the programmers at these companies put their minds too it, they could repurpose much of the same software utilized to detect terrorist propaganda to also detect hints of defamation. Instead of searching for symbols and words connected to terrorist groups, the software would search for words that would suggest an insulting or defamatory message is about to be made. If any were detected, then the website/app would require you to wait 20 minutes before posting your comment and suggest that you consider revising your statement. I feel that this procedure would help eliminate a fair amount of the defamation and insults that are posted out of rash, unbridled emotions that we are all too susceptible to. All in all, I believe that if a) social media platforms admit that there are reoccurring problems concerning what content is posted on their website/app and b) these companies formulate real plans with clear objectives on how to limit this malicious content, then we will see less of these cases involving defamatory statements destroying a business. The catch though, is that stipulation a) must occur first, for it is not until these social media platforms accept some of the responsibility for the malicious content that is posted on their webpages that they will begin to take appropriate action to counteract it.

    Sources:
    Entous, Adam, et al. “Obama tried to give Zuckerberg a wake-up call over fake news on Facebook.” The Washington Post, 26 Sept. 2017 https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/business/economy/obama-tried-to-give-zuckerberg-a-wake-up-call-over-fake-news-on-facebook/2017/09/24/15d19b12-ddac-4ad5-ac6e-ef909e1c1284_story.html Accessed 26 Sept. 2017

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like how you said "becoming brave behind our invisible shields" and I agree. Being anonymous gives people the idea that their actions have no consequences resulting in more bold statements than what they would say unmasked. Studies have shown that when comments were tied to identities they were classified as "uncivil" 29% of the time compared to 53% if they were anonymous (Psychology Today). That same article by Psychology Today says that some news sites are moving to Facebook for discussions/commenting so there will be a name linked to the comment and reduce the "trolls”. I find it interesting that the right to freedom of speech was/is fought for for so long by minority groups (anyone that isn't a rich white guy) because their voices weren't being heard, but now having no identity seems like a better option for some people. Someone's identity was the reason they didn't have free speech, but now having no identity makes people more free with their speech. Pretty ironic.

    Sources:
    Golbeck, Jennifer. “Anonymous Commenters Are Ruining Everything. Here's How.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 27 Sept. 2014, www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/anonymous-commenters-are-ruining-everything-heres-how.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gamifying Citizenship

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...

Wedding Cake Court Case (make-up post)

Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic...

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...