1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
Damage to the plaintiff.
Well under these statements wrongful accusations that are commented on Franklin's YouTube videos qualify as libel. However I do not agree with this. She knew very well the risk she was taking when she posted the video. You must take responsibility for placing yourself in the lion's den. If the video of her was placed without her consent and comments like this occurred, I would think perhaps she might have a case. I also found it ironic that at the bottom of this article was an open comment section, where people were harassing this girl again. Someone must have it out for her.
In response to the Collin's case, I was a little confused about it. However I do believe you enter a new realm when dealing with legal cases and informing citizens. To look at it from another view; people doing Jury duty a supposed to keep their hands clean from any information involving the case. However, if exposed to the internet, as most people are these type of comments can in fact influence a Jury member. To place it simply I really do not have much of an opinion regarding this case.
From the Comment Cops article I find it extremely necessary to monitor the statements placed by users especially under newspaper sites. I do believe it depends on the type of website that they are posting under, for instance a political site vs. a Cosmo. The two have completely different reasons for operating so therefor what is reasonable under Cosmo may not be reasonable under CNN. One aspect of the article that I thoroughly enjoyed was the server JuLia which is a machine that automatically monitors your websites discussion forum. It places flags on people that use unsuitable wording for that site and can forward that commenters behavior to be monitored by a person. Another example of this that I found was the In-Portal service, which also agrees that comments on your website is extremely important.
With new technologies like these servers what other actions can be taken? I agree with the new steps being taken in order to make commenters think twice about what they are posting. Some of these actions are not allowing anonymous postings. I think the article's metaphor of the bathroom stall is a great one. Forcing users to log in using their real names will place one more barrier between logical debates and irresponsible rants. As readers we should respect the decisions and words of writers, however this is not a perfect world and something must be done. I believe these steps are a step in the right direction. Yes, restricting anonymity may force you to loose a few commenters who may have a different view that one would like to read, but at the same time if they are not willing to place a name by their ideologies than personally I would rather not read what they have to say.
However, I do not necessarily agree with I=The Hills closing down their comments. Yes it is supposed to be a fun aspect of their online journal, however they contestant know exactly what they are getting into and to be honest, whether it's posted or not someone is bound to say it- you just won't hear it. If ignorance is bliss, well then these beauty pageant people most be pretty bliss.
Immediately reading the article "Why I like vicious, anonymous online commenting" I realized an aspect that I had failed to notice, a quite obvious one; online commenting gives people a mask and therefor the ability to say anything without having to deal with the consequences. I enjoyed this article because of Matt Zoller Seitz's statement
"But for all the downsides of comments-thread anonymity, there's a major upside: It shows us the American id in all its snaggletoothed, pustulent glory, with a transparency that didn't exist before the Internet. And in its rather twisted way, that's a public service"
And yes, it doesn't hide the American people, it does in face "show us the American id in all its snaggletoothed postulant glory", but is that necessary something that everyone wants to read? That may sound ignorant of me, but in reality while scrolling through comments we are normally looking for an educational debate that will get our brains thumping? I enjoyed this quote from Vin Crosbie's Blog,
Publishing anonymous, unvetted, and unreviewed commentary online is hugely divergent from the policies of those publications' print editions. It's a different kettle of fish, one that can stink for the publishers. Indeed, those publishers and their new-media managers are being reckless. And if you think I've used too strong a word, poll newspaper libel lawyers and libel insurers.
In this regard we move onto our next subject discussing that for websites such as CNN or FoxNews these comments rarely do any justice to what the website is trying to convey or communicate. No it does not mean block peoples opinion but it blocks irrational people from placing
No comments:
Post a Comment