Question of the Week: Due 3/6/2009

[The Question of the Week is due on Friday, 3/6/2009 by 5:00 PM. It should be at least 500 words in length and include at least three links to back your viewpoint. This blog is worth 50 points.]

Background: The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. It states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [from http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1] On the Internet it has been interpreted to mean that anonymous posters to blogs, chat rooms, and forums should be able to write whatever they wish even if it hurts someone else and is not necessarily true. Here are some background articles:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/02/appeals-court-first-amendment-protects-forum-trolls-too.ars

http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2008/10/judges-rule-anonymous-commenters-protected-by-state-shield-laws304.html

However, in Maryland, a web site called NewsZap.com was court ordered to turn over names of anonymous posters who posted negative comments about the cleanliness of a local Dunkin' Donuts store. The owner claimed the allegations were not true and that it was a case of defamation. Today, a higher court overturned the ruling stating:

In a defamation case involving anonymous speakers, the ruling said, courts should first require the plaintiff to try to notify the anonymous posters that they are the subject of a subpoena. That notification could come in the form of a message posted to the online forum in question, and the posters must be given sufficient time to respond.
The plaintiff must then hand over the exact statements in question, so the court can decide whether the comments are obviously defamatory. Finally, the ruling says, the court must weigh the anonymous poster's right to free speech against the strength of the defamation case and the necessity of disclosing the poster's identity. [from http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10185063-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5]

Question(s) of the week: Do you think anonymous posters should be protected under the first amendment? For example, what if anonymous posters said untrue things about you that ruined your social reputation (or that of your family, or best friend, or boy friend?). Should you have a right to know who is lying about you so you could take steps to correct the lies? Does being someone famous make a difference? What if you are in a foreign country, like China, that does not have freedom of speech? Do you think that web sites in the USA should protect the identity of polictical activitists who post in other countries? Or, like Yahoo did in 2007, should they turn the names of political dissidents to the government? [see http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-31271948_ITM]

This Question of the Week is worth 50 points, must be at least 500 words in length, and must include at least three research links to back your viewpoint.