Assignment #2

For this assignment i've been asked to read this article: http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/09/68799

and to post a short reaction to it. We'll see how short i can keep this...


Posting on a blog is similar to giving a public address, or talking to a friend about something. The only difference is that, being "in print," a blog keeps a record of what was said. The comments that are left can and should be considered dialogue in a public place between two parties. It is the archival nature, of blogs, however, that make them more vulnarable to lawsuits. Just the same as if one put up a website that defamed someone, writing falsehoods or libelous passages in a blog can and should be subject to legal action. This is not to say, however, that in this case, Traffic Power seems to have any legal foothold to stand on.

The posters and commenters were raising public awareness of an injustice. This is the same as if you had seen an investigative report on the evening news, talking about a certain local car shop who is scamming its customers. It is based in fact, supported by evidence from others, and widely agreed upon. In honesty, the posters and commentors could stand outside of Traffic Power's offices singing "We Didn't Start the Fire..." and voila, case in point. The point, again, is that Traffic Power already had a bad reputation, and these posts were not "shots" at the company, as much as they were raising public awareness and general complaints.

In many cases, it is difficult to tell if a blog comes from a credible source. It is almost 100% impossible to determine if a comment on a blog comes from a credible, or even real source. This is where legal action can get tricky. While it may be ok to sue someone who posts an entry, say, claiming OU is a terrible school and posting lots of lies that create a giant footprint of misinformation; It should not be considered an option to sue a blogger over the comments posted on thier site. The blogger can turn off or delete inappropriate comments, but in the spirit of free speach, should not be required to do so. Determining credibility is almost always an issue of proving personal credibility of the writer, or the credibility of the company it is associated with. For me, this often involves research outside of simply clicking the bio page.

Internet service providers should have to provide the names of people who commit crimes using thier services. There should not be a way for an ISP to claim some form of amnesty from this duty. I could go into why more, but I'm already way over my 200 words, and attempting to keep this short. Ask me in person if you want to know more.

I tend to agree with the author and the accused in this case: This is an example of a company attempting to bully the little guy into disappearing, simply because they can afford to put up big dollar lawyers. If anything, Traffic Power should be counter sued for false claims and the court costs of the defendant should be reimbursed.