URBAN GAONKER Public and Private Margaret Mascarenhas The internet discussion lists to which I subscribe, or am a member, are comprised of academic forums which I have been invited to join as a member, lists that are concerned with social agenda and change, writers' groups of various kinds. Although there is generally no formal contract on any of these, save the terms and conditions of the forum host (such as yahoo), to which members are subject, there tend to be certain accepted norms of conduct, which are regulated by the ethical standards of the members themselves. Occasionally a moderator will step in, in the event a discussion becomes too personalized. On most lists, the moderator's job is not unlike that of an print editor in the sense that he/she is not only responsible for posting the mails of the members, but of examining content beforehand. Earlier, in terms of defamation, this was somewhat of a legal gray area, mitigated by issues of freedom of speech, censorship, jurisdiction, etc. However, the gray areas are becoming more defined, according to EFL.com, a site that provides information about, and case studies concerned with, internet law: "The Internet is taking on special relevance in the area of what is printed on it, which brings in the Laws of Libel. Very clearly, we are going to see Web operators, especially Discussion Board Managers tighten their control over what they allow to be published on line. Whilst issues abound....a myriad of International laws now dictate that Web Operators will probably start to apply more rigid and more rigidly controlled moderating and posting guidelines."
Public net forums with little in-built moderating guidelines are not for the faint of heart. They are not the cyber-places to hang out if you're not prepared for a little or a lot of mud wrestling. Which is why I am no longer a member of any forum that does not have editorial guidelines for the content it posts during a debate. Some might call me a net wimp. For net warriors, on the other hand, the no-holds-barred environment, where people can spew out anything and everything that is on their mind, vent their frustrations, lash out without repercussion--except for verbal retaliatory abuse from their fellow members-- is just what the doctor ordered. On such lists, it is my impression that you can basically be an opinion columnist without any of the responsibilities that go with it. What are the implications of this? How, for instance, do we balance the right to free speech with the rights of an individual not to have his/her name and reputation impugned? Should net forums with readerships open to the public at large, readerships equal or more than a print publication, and a longer "shelf" life, be held to the same legal and ethical standards as the print media? In civil society, defamation laws exist because of the individual's right to his/her "good name" and reputation, and the right to protect them from being impugned literally or by inference. A couple of months ago, a heated online debate was sparked off online by writer, Tony Martin. The subject was me. The debate became even more inflammatory following the publication of my last column, when, while addressing a larger subject matter, I availed of the opportunity to say something in my defense and the defense of cartoonist Mario Miranda. Although much of the debate ultimately became highly personalized, there were several issues conveyed to me privately that raised some interesting questions, legal and ethical, and I suddenly found myself becoming more interested in those than in the debate itself. One person argued that the rules for internet forums and the rules for print media are different. While that may hold true for the time being, the logical question that follows is: who decides the rules and what are the standards to be applied in the interest of fair play and justice? Yet another argument posited that I myself, holding a more public position than my debate opponent, and thereby, arguably holding more social power and influence, was bound by the principle of Aequitas to restrain myself in my own defense. Yet another view was that the person with a public image on the line is fully justified in using every legal means possible in the mounting of a defense. I found myself arguing in my own head for the former, i.e. the principle of Aequitas should rule. In accordance with my belief that such disputes always have a better chance of resolution in the private arena, where the focus on maintenance of one's own public image is not an influence, I withdrew from the fray and began to reach out directly and privately to my opponent. I do not know all the answers to all the questions I've raised above. But here is what I learned from the experience: 1. Conflict resolution between two reasonable people is best done one on one and in private. 2. Misunderstandings happen in spite of the best intentions. 3. Tony Martin is not a bad man, even if he may have reacted badly out of hurt feelings with respect to my refusal to edit his book for free in this particular case. 4. I need to be more formal, professional and clear when addressing questions from strangers such as "would you be interested in editing my book?" and not simply say something like, "I'll have a look at it." 5. In spite of my reputation for going for the jugular when provoked, I don't really have the killer instinct. The good news for peace proponents: the bloodbath is over. The bad news for the bloodthirsty: there will be a reconciliation and civilized exchange of views to which no one will be privy online or in print. ====