COMMENTARY
Putting the Brakes on Blowhard 'Bloggers'
By Norah Vincent, Norah Vincent is a columnist in Yardley, Pa.
If the Internet is a frontier, then the online self-publishing phenomenon
called Web logging, or "blogging," is the virtual Wild West where any old
varmint with a Web site can shoot his mouth off. A recent decision by the
High Court of Australia, however, could civilize the Internet, perhaps to
the detriment of the 1st Amendment.
The Australian case involves an allegedly defamatory article that Barron's
newspaper published about Melbourne mining magnate Joseph Gutnick.
Though the article was published in the U.S., it was downloaded from the
Web in Australia. So the court ruled that Dow Jones & Co., the parent
company of Barron's, could be sued for damages under Australian, not
American, libel law.
This is bad news for free speech in cyberspace because it means that Web
content, wherever it originates, might be subject to foreign libel laws,
many of which are much stricter than our own.
Australian Precedent
This wouldn't matter so much if it meant simply that major media outlets
would have to spend more time fending off complaints. After all, they can
afford to, although all such costs eventually trickle down to consumers.
But what about pipsqueak bloggers who can't afford to protect themselves
from the umbrageous hordes at home, let alone abroad? The Australian
precedent could burden them immeasurably and thus raises the question: Is
policing speech in the blogosphere a good and necessary thing or just
another way to mum the common man?
Actually, it's both, which is why there is cause to be heartened and concerned.
We should be concerned because, until recently, the blogosphere has been a
haven of free expression.
Though libel law has always applied to Web content, most bloggers have
flown beneath the radar, making it possible to disseminate their sometimes
injudicious remarks with virtual impunity. And most of the time that has
been a good thing because, unlike in the gated confines of print newspapers
and magazines whose hand-picked and bowdlerized letters sections abrogate
reader feedback, anybody can participate in public debate on the Net.
One-man bands such as Instapundit, Kausfiles, andrewsullivan.com and a
hundred smaller operations are spicing the debate, keeping the media powers
honest and putting our free press through its paces.
But there's a flip side to this. As much as the blogosphere is full of
brave and vital input, it's also full of the careless, mad and sometimes
vengeful ravings of half-wits who will say anything, especially about
established journalists and writers, just to attract more attention to
their sites. This can get ugly when content is unregulated.
Internet Outrages
In the major media world, editors and fact-checkers try to catch
inaccuracies, excise lies and slanders and print corrections and
retractions for mistakes that slip into print. But few bloggers follow this
protocol. What they say, however outrageous or unfounded, tends to stick.
Full disclosure: This happened to me when I integrated four words from a
Jackson Browne song into a piece I posted on my blog. Another blogger
accused me of plagiarism, and the unmerited charge spread across the Web at
frightening speed.
As any conspiracy theorist knows, falsehoods take on an authority all their
own on the Internet. So when bloggers willfully defame those with
professional reputations to defend, that is a serious breach for which they
should be held accountable.
Blogging is one of the best things that has ever happened to freedom of
expression and the press, and we should make every effort to protect its
scrupulous practitioners. But freedoms come with responsibilities. Common
journalistic standards of accuracy and fair play exist for good reasons,
and bloggers, like the rest of us, must abide by them. By drawing attention
to libelous Web content, the Australian case may force them to.
http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-oe-vincent19dec19.story
But only force them through market forces eh,dec?