The number of persons accessing the Internet is increasing at a tremendous rate. As Internet usage expands, so do the accompanying legal issues. The law is evolving to catch up with this technology and many legal conflicts have yet to be resolved.
The courts currently are struggling with issues such as obscenity and defamation. The Internet is an attractive forum for people to express their views. Users are lulled into a false sense of security by the belief that they remain anonymous since it is possible to log on under an assumed name. Once connected to the net, a user can browse through thousands of sites set up as discussion areas until finding one of interest.
Once inside a discussion area, also known as a "chat room," it's not uncommon for debates to turn into personal attacks. When a message is posted on the net, it becomes available to millions of people throughout the world and can be downloaded and saved over and over again. Users of the net should take heed of what they "say" on the net since spirited views can be construed as libel, which may subject the individual, as well as the Internet provider, to legal action.
Libel is generally defined as a maliciously written or printed publication which tends to blacken a person's reputation or expose him to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injure him in his business or profession. There is a difference between a person posting a message saying he is dissatisfied with a certain service provided by a company and making a broad statement that this company cheats everyone.
Not only can individual users be subject to liability for such statements, but so too can the Internet service providers. In a 1995 case filed in New York, Stratton Oakmont, a securities banking firm, sued Prodigy Services Company, an on-line service provider, over allegedly libelous statements made on a "Money Talk" financial bulletin board provided by Prodigy.
Prodigy was found to be a "publisher" and thus potentially liable for statements posted on the bulletin board. In finding Prodigy to be a "publisher," the court stressed that Prodigy held itself out to the public as controlling the content of its computer bulletin boards and that Prodigy used certain procedures to implement control of the content of its boards including pre-screening, deletion of messages containing certain specified offensive terms and certain guidelines for acceptable and unacceptable subject matter for postings. The court also found that the individual (the board leader) who posted the offensive material to be an agent of Prodigy regardless of any agreements between this individual and Prodigy because of the direction and control that Prodigy had with regard to his actions in respect to the "Money Talk" bulletin board.
However, the issue of free speech on the net is still in a state of flux. On June11th, the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania struck a blow against the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which provides for as much as a $250,000 fine and a two-year jail term for publishing "indecent" or "patently" offensive material within reach of minors on the Internet. Both users and on-line providers will be watching these types of cases carefully for an indication of their respective rights and obligations with respect to their activity on the net. A good rule of thumb is to judge the content of your posting by whether or not you would publish the same material in a newspaper.