Abstract
This article explores recent developments inthe regulation of Internet speech, inparticular, injurious or defamatory speech andthe impact the attempts at regulation arehaving on the `body' in the sense of theindividual person who speaks through the mediumof the Internet and upon those harmed by thatspeech. The article proceeds in threesections. First, a brief history of the legalattempts to regulate defamatory Internet speechin the United States is presented; a shortcomparative discussion of defamation law in theUK and Australia is included. As discussedbelow, this regulation has altered thetraditional legal paradigm of responsibilityand, as a result, creates potential problems forthe future of unrestricted and even anonymousspeech on the Internet. Second, an ethicalassessment is made of the defamatory speechenvironment in order to determine which actorshave moral responsibility for the harm causedby defamatory speech. This moral assessment iscompared to the developing and anticipatedlegal paradigm to identify possible conformityof moral and legal tenants or to recognize theconflict between morality and law in assigningresponsibility to defamatory actors. Thisassessment then concludes with possiblesuggestions for changes in the legal climategoverning the regulation of defamatory speechon the Internet, as well as prediction of theresult should the legal climate continue todevelop on its present course. This is not tosuggest that all law, or even the law ofdefamation, be structured to reflect thesubjectivity of a moral construct, but since itis the authors position that the legalassignment of liability in online settings ismisaligned, this reflection can serve asbeginning reassessment of that assignment.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Civil Liberties Union. Fahrenheit 451: Is Cyberspace Burning? In Richard Spinello and Herman Tavani, editors, Readings in Cyberethics, pages 149–162. Jones and Bartlett, Boston, 2001.
Ian C. Ballon. Defamation and Preemption under the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Why the Rule in Zeran v. America Online is Wrong, Cyberspace Lawyer, 2: 6, 1997.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Ethics. Collier Books, New York, 1986.
Elizabeth Buchanan. Ethical Considerations for the Information Professions. In Richard Spinello and Herman Tavani, editors, Readings in Cyberethics, pages 523–534. Jones and Bartlett, Boston, 2001.
Reinard Buys, editor. Cyberlaw: The Law of the Internet in South Africa. Van Schaik, Pretoria, 2000.
Cynthia L. Counts and C. Amanda Martin. Libel in Cyberspace: A Framework for Addressing Liability and Jurisdictional Issues in this New Frontier. Albany Law Review, 59: 1083–1133, 1996.
Michelle J. Kane. Business Law: 1. Electronic Commerce: b) Internet Service Provider Liability: Blumenthal v. Drudge. Berkeley Tech. L.J. 14: 483–501, 1999.
Jeffrey R. Kuester and Peter A. Nieves. Hyperlinks: A Form of Protected Expression? The National Law Journal, C10, January 26, 1998.
Arthur Kuflik. Computers in Control: Rational Transfer of Authority or Irresponsible Abdication of Autonomy? Ethics and Information Technology, 1: 173–184, 1999.
W. Page Keeton. Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, 5th Ed. West Publishing, St. Paul, 1984.
Laurin H. Milles and Leslie Paul Machado. ISP Immunity Provisions Broadly Interpreted. The National Law Journa, C19, C20, April 15, 2002.
Helen Nissenbaum. Computing and Accountability. Communications of the ACM, 37(1): 72–81, 1994.
Robert O'Neill. Free Speech in Cyberspace. Journal of Information Ethics, 7(1), 15–23, 1998.
Paul Resnick and James Miller. PICS: Internet Access Controls Without Censorship. In Richard Spinello and Herman Tavani, editors, Readings in Cyberethics, pages 188–197. Jones and Bartlett, Boston, 2001.
Brenda Sandburg. Hyperlink Blast Sparks a Libel Suit. The National Law Journal, A4, February 21, 2000.
William Schweikert. Responsibility and Christian Ethics. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1995.
Michael H. Spencer. Defamatory E-Mail and Employer Liability: Why Razing Zeran v. America Online Is a Good Thing. Richmond Journal of Law and Technology, 6: 25, 2000.
Richard Spinello. Internet Service Providers and Defamation: New Standards of Liability. In Richard Spinello and Herman Tavani, editors, Readings in Cyberethics, pages 198–209. Jones and Bartlett, Boston, 2001.
Scott Sterling. International Law of Mystery: Holding Internet Service Providers Liable for Defamation and the Need for a Comprehensive International Solution. Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review, 21: 327–337, 2001.
F. Lawrence Street. Law of the Internet. Lexis Law Publishing, Newark, 2000.
Kent D. Stuckey. Internet and Online Law. Law Journal Seminars Press, New York, 2000.
James M. Talbot. New Media: Intellectual Property, Entertainment and Technology Law. Clark Boardman Callaghan, Rochester, 1999.
David Wiener. Negligent Publication of Statements Posted on Electronic Bulletin Boards: Is There Any Liability Left After Zeran? Santa Clara Law Review, 39: 905–939, 1999.
Harvey L. Zuckman. Modern Communications Law. West Group, St. Paul. 1999.
Roger Darlington. Internet Ethics: Oxymoron or Orthodoxy? Available http://members.lycos.co.uk/rogerdarlington/Internetethics.html. Accessed 15 November 2001.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lipinski, T.A., Buchanan, E.A. & Britz, J.J. Sticks and stones and words that harm: Liability vs. responsibility, section 230 and defamatory speech in cyberspace. Ethics and Information Technology 4, 143–158 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019915520692
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019915520692