The Increasing Risk of Reality

As we all know the Internet is the greatest avenue to free speech, and it should have the greatest protection, but where does harassment fit in? The internet has become the newest avenue to harassment. People are allowed to say just about anything on the internet. Take for example the Kathleen Benz v. The Washington Newspaper: Benz had private details of her personal life (real and fake) posted on a public website. On this website John Bisney, the creator, revealed who she dated, her sexual relations, and false information about her personal life. The internet provided Bisney with the opportunity to invaded her privacy and publicly harass her (1).

Lately, more and more forms of harassment have been showing up on the internet, and it is getting pretty serious. About a year ago, 13 year-old Megan Meier, hung herself, a few minutes after receiving mean messages on the Web site MySpace. She died the next day. MySpace is a popular social networking site a lot like Facebook (2), and on Myspace Megan met a boy named Josh. Josh was new to the community; he used to live in Florida, 16-years-old, cute, and home-schooled. For over a month Josh and Megan corresponded and became "friends.” Then things suddenly changed and Josh no longer wanted to be her friend (4). Minuets before her death, Megan showed her mother electronic bulletins, posted by Josh, saying things like, "Megan Meier is a slut. Megan Meier is fat.” He later went on to say that the world would be better off without her (3).

Megan suffered from depression and ADD, which she was on medication for, but her relationship with Josh seemed to lessen her symptoms. Obviously she felt Josh might be romantically interested in her and it was a major blow when Josh harshly ended their relationship (4). The harassment from Josh pushed this unstable girl towards her tragic end, but there is a sick twist to this story. Josh was not a real boy.

About six weeks after her death, Megan’s parents found out that “Josh” was created by a mother down the street who wanted to know what Megan was saying about her own daughter, who had had a falling out with Megan (2). Josh was created by an adult with sick intent, she went far enough to say that “the world would be better off” without her (1). This lady was so worried about teenage gossip that she drove a young girl to commit suicide, but no criminal charges have filed. Needless to say, Megan’s parents are livid.

And here is where the freedom of speech conflict appears: How do you limit harassment without limiting freedom of speech. What this woman did to Megan is hard to define. Her words weren’t fighting words because they didn’t incite an instantaneous riot, so I suppose it would be considered hate speech more than anything. Hate speech is legal… but is it legal when it drives the recipient to suicide? “State lawmakers question how the state law could be altered without running afoul of First Amendment issues” (2).

The Meiers' hometown, just outside of St. Louis, has proposed a new ordinance related to child endangerment and Internet harassment, and Republican Rep. Cynthia Davis, a state lawmaker who represents their area, said she is trying to see if existing Missouri laws can be improved. But, she noted, any legal reforms must protect freedom of speech rights (6).

Myspace, and the internet in general, has also become an outlet for sexual harassment as well. Wired News reporter Kevin Poulsen conducted an experiment that proved this. He wrote a computer program that matched databases of registered sex offenders with MySpace profiles and found hundreds of matches. “On Poulsen's list: A thrice-convicted sex offender who had recently finished a nine-year jail term for sexually abusing two young boys. It turned out he was using MySpace to approach and proposition young boys” (5). MySpace isn’t the only problem. MSNBC’s T.V. show To Catch a Predator reinforces Poulsen’s findings. They have caught a countless number of men seeking underage, sexual relationships in chat rooms on various websites (7).

There is a culture lag between new technology and the law. Since the internet is fairly recent current laws do not cover its surfacing consequences, like in Megan Meier’s case (4). Our legal system will have to adapt to the conflict between freedom of speech and harassment on the internet. How do we preserve freedom of speech on the internet without risking the safety of the people on the internet? I guess if I were truly a libertarian I would accept the risk involved in allowing true freedom of speech, but these days the risk is awfully high. I surely wouldn’t want my sexual relationships posted on a website, have my 13 year-old daughter kill herself because of online harassment, or have my curious 12 year-old daughter enter a chat room with a bunch of men ready to seduce her. When risk increasingly turns into reality, a change needs to be made.


Sources:

1.) https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2005cv1760-28

2.) http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Internet-Suicide.html?_r=1&oref=slogin\

3.) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21844203/page/2/

4.)http://educationalissues.suite101.com/article.cfm/internet_harassment_is_legal

5.) http://redtape.msnbc.com/2007/05/myspace_and_sex.html


6.) http://games.consumerelectronicsnet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=237673


7.)http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17601568/

Freedom of Speech: Us vs. Them

As an American, when I think "freedom of speech," I think "absolute right," but not all countries see it that way. Many foreigners are shocked to hear the lengths The U.S. Government goes to protect "hate speech" or "bad ideas"(1). We feel that the Internet, being the greatest avenue for free speech, should have the greatest protection, but does the rest of the world feel that way? As worldwide communication grows, so does the debate over how much freedom speech really deserves, espically on the Internet. The fairly recent invention of youtube.com has turned into a media phenomenon, and as its popularity emerges so do conflicting ideas about their responsibility. Should Youtube enforce American values of freedom of speech or should the website pay more attention to diverse cultural sensitivities? (2)

Youtube, a video sharing website, was created in 2005 by Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim. Chen and Karim studied computer science together at our very own U of I (impressive to say the least). After almost immediate success, Google bought the website for about $1.65 billion in stock. Youtube is growing every day, and people all over the world can access this site. Countries such as Spain, Poland, Japan, and Brazil have localized versions and those are only a few of them(3). But with this worldwide popularity, comes worldwide conflict. Some of the videos posted offend people from other countries and they feel that offensive videos shouldn't be allowed on the site, but the American interpretation of freedom of speech allows these videos.

Thanks to New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Americans can criticize their government officials (as long as actual malice isn't present); we protect offensive and false speech to ensure that our debate is uninhibited, robust, and wide open (4). If speech is going to be truly free, we are going to have to protect the good and the bad. Freedom of speech is defined as a "part of American culture, resulting from our own history and experience"(1). The values of American society are based upon the fact that we are free to express ourselves.

On the other hand, some countries don't want to protect all speech. Germany is a good example. As a nation trying to combat the horrific legacy of Nazism and the Holocaust, they obviously don't tolerate any form of "hate speech," any display of Nazi symbols, or any advocacy of genocide. European nations that that were victims of the Nazi regime probably feel the same way (1). Another example is the Turkish government who, just yesterday, decided they should change a controversial law restricting freedom of expression. Currently Article 301, bans perceived insults to Turkish identity or the country's institutions. The main victims of this law are Turkish nationalists who argue hat the Ottoman empire committed genocide against Armenians (5). It's clear that countries all over the world, for one reason or another, aren't as avid fans of freedom of speech

When I came across Veena Thoopkrajae's article Learn a lesson in free speech with YouTube, It opened my eyes to how other countries view freedom of speech and how Youtube challenges their beliefs. The article discusses "how the Thai government has blamed YouTube for violating the rights of Thai people by 'knowingly' allowing offensive videos on their site" (2). The author states that, "Freedom of speech is universal but, as it states in the constitutions of various countries including Thailand, it is not an absolute right, although a fundamental one"(2). At this point our difference of opinions became very clear, and then the author goes on to say that "insulting anyone - not necessarily a prophet, pope or a country's leader - or making false accusations against them does not fall under free speech by any country's legal standard"(2). At that point, I truly saw the conflict that Youtube creates.

In America, where the company was born, insults and false accusations do fall under the legal standard for protected speech, but since this website is accessed by people all over the world, they risk violating the rights of their foreign customers. So "where is the balance between the rights of various parties in cyberspace when your website is accessible around the world?"(2)

I don't really know the answer to that question considering its complexity, but websites like Youtube are changing the world and with the globalization of Youtube might come the globalization of true freedom of speech...all I know is that the only constant is change.



Sources:
1.) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1000263
2.)http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/09/01/opinion/opinion_30047344.php
3.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube
4.)http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=376&invol=254
5.)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7081747.stm