WaPo: Words Die Hard on th eWeb

[James Maule]

1. Why should the constitutional law analysis be any different when dealing with an internet comment than with the comments that circulated in newspapers, personal notes, and hallway conversations long before there was an internet, and which, though reaching a generally smaller audience, were no less difficult to rebut (and in some instances more difficult to rebut because the fact of the comment often was denied whereas internet technology removes that "defense")?**

2. Though off-topic other than how it reflects on the analysis of question 1, why is it so difficult for employers to take time to learn and understand the limitations of their ever more popular "googling" approach to screening candidates, aside from laziness, ignorance, or unwillingness to invest time and resources?

3. The cited article reeks of grounds for legal action (e.g., unauthorized use of a person's photograph), and yet the claims of "nothing can be done legally" pop up throughout the article. If there indeed are legal justifications for certain remedies that fall short of constitutional claims or defenses, does that not matter to the analysis of the constitutional overtones?

Jim Maule

** Some years ago, the late Dick Turkington (the guru of privacy law and a fine colleague) and I talked about the impact of internet technology on privacy law (including some of its constitutional aspects). He claimed that because the internet made it easier to dig up information (such as collating a person's police record from multiple police departments by searching newspapers nationally) that the law needed to evolve new rules. I disagreed, pointing out that the internet did not make new things POSSIBLE, merely EASIER. At best, it bore on the question of damages, because the more widely disseminated the actionable speech, theoretically the higher the damages (assuming causation exists). I understand, though, that the "debate" Dick and I had in the mid 90s continues, though unfortunately without his insights.

>>> "Lynne Henderson" <hendersl at ix.netcom.com> 3/7/2007 2:22:38 PM >>>
Harsh Words Die Hard on the Web - washingtonpost.comOn a serious side--this is harmful speech and virtually impossible to respond to, no/  Although a correctio nsite has been started. . . .
Lynne Henderson



This page was sent to you by: hendersl at ix.netcom.com 
Harsh Words Die Hard on the Web

By Ellen Nakashima
She graduated Phi Beta Kappa, has published in top legal journals and completed internships at leading institutions in her field. So when the Yale law student interviewed with 16 firms for a job this summer, she was concerned that she had only four call-backs. She was stunned when she had zero...
     
     


Do you love D.C.? Get the insider's guide to where to stay, what to do and where to eat. Go to www.washingtonpost.com/cityguide for your guide to D.C. now.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company | Privacy Policy