| James Grimmelmann, September 08, 2007 [View as PDF] |
When search engines lead thousands of searchers to anonymous online harassment, it may seem only natural to look for legal ways to make the harassment disappear from search results. This initially attractive idea is in fact deeply dangerous. It pressures the wrong intermediary, invites abuse by spammers and censors, and misunderstands the relationship between search engines and search users. Search-engine amplification is part of the problem of online harassment, but laws targeting search engines are the wrong solution.
| “The Legal Profession, Personal Responsibility, and the Internet” |
 |
 |
 |
| Michelle Morris, September 08, 2007 [View as PDF] |
Our law students are more tech-savvy than ever. Unfortunately, they occasionally lack sense. Some of them simply fail to realize that we:professors, bar examiners, and law firms:see material they post online. Others make a game out of being intentionally, but anonymously, offensive. To avoid further injury to the reputation of our law schools and the legal profession, we must create incentives for the former students to consider consequences, and a reasonable chance that the latter students can be”caught”:i.e., tied to their online personas. To accomplish both ends, I propose that we request, in law school and bar applications, a three-year history of online aliases and related information.
| Steven J. Horowitz, September 08, 2007 [View as PDF] |
| AutoAdmit has its problems:racism, sexism, and bigotry quickly come to mind:but we would not care nearly as much about its more vicious content were it not for Google. In this essay, I sketch a framework for a statutory solution to the Google bomb problem derived from the notice-and-takedown provisions of theDigital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The purpose of this framework is to eliminate defamatory anonymous speech from Google search results. It would require search engines to remove a Web page from their indexes when an individual notifies them that the page contains defamatory content, while allowing those who post the content to respond with counternotices or other legal action. |
| “Regulating Cyberbullies Through Notice-Based Liability” |
|
|
|
| Bradley A. Areheart, September 08, 2007 [View as PDF] |
| With the growth of the Internet’s uses and abuses, Internet harassment is making headlines. Given its immediacy, anonymity, and accessibility, the Internet offers an unprecedented forum for defamation and harassment. The salient problem with such”cyberbullying”is that victims are typically left without adequate recourse. The government should provide recourse by curtailing the near absolute immunity Internet Service Providers (ISPs) currently enjoy under the Communications Decency Act (CDA) and implementing a notice and take-down scheme:similar to that for copyright infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA):for certain torts. |
|
|
