The world wide web is a sensitive place
I was recently involved in a discussion on Gizmodo about a recent defamation claim made on the Australian Tech and lifestyle forum ZGeek.com.
The thrust of the article is that the world wide web is a dangerous place to shoot from the hip when commenting or ranting about things because it invites the sensitive or litigious internet user to make a claim for defamation in relation to the offensive post.
Whilst that may be true it is limited to those circumstances in which the identity of the person at whom the rant or offending comment is aimed being identifiable by other readers of the comment whether by name or through some identifying particulars mentioned in the post. It is not enough for a disgruntled reader to say 'I resemble that remark!' and be able to run off and file a claim in the court of their choice.
Of course anyone can file a claim in a court of competent jurisdiction the question of course then is - will the claim stand up to scrutiny?
Now this may cause some initial difficulties for webmasters who are served with proceedings complaining of offensive comments on the websites for which they are responsible but in the ordinary course of goings on on the web the post is going to have to be pretty brazen to make it defamatory against all but the most famous of celebrities and then the usual defences against defamation will apply such as truth, reasonably held opinion, editorial comment, contextual truth, satire, hyperbole and vulgar invective to name but a few.
Now if you like the internet and comments made on sites such as ZGeek and its ilk to a pub where individuals enter into animated discussion about this and that and the other then as a source of authoritative opinion the pickings are pretty slim unless you go to one of the major news sites or press agencies. There aren't too many defamation cases arising from comments overheard by someone at the pub even really big pubs.
In my opinion this obsession with what is said on the internet about Joe Bloggs and his dog is just a little precious. Back in the days before the world wide web and discussion forums where frank exchanges of views took place down the pub over a few beers people rarely got their noses out of joint over comments that were made about whether what they did was right wrong or otherwise and when they did differences were sorted out by a frank exchange of views and not litigation.
Maybe I'm getting a old or perhaps people are getting a little thin skinned and soft because what is said is in print. I reckon that before people start getting their noses out of joint about what might be said online they should consider the authority with which it is said and the quality of the source of the opinion.
Anonymity online is great but there is no substitute to standing behind what you say by putting your name to it. Owning your comments gives them credibility and you character and invites anyone who wants to challenge your viewpoint pause for thought because you are standing behind what you say. Anonymity isn't cowardice but it does detract from the authority ascribed to what is said. Guest177 says X Y and Z is hardly compelling even if it is offensive, insulting or distressing.
For what it's worth my view is that folks need to harden up just a little bit and rise above the muckpit some corners of the internet provide for anonymous ranting.
