924Board.org

[Rick MacLaren]

{3} As bright minds find comfort in "hiding" on the Internet, they often fail to take responsibility for their views. Instead they sometimes elect to criticize the views of others, feeling that they are immune from harm so long as they continue to attack. Such attacks, as most Internet users know, are called flames and are all too common elements of everyday correspondence in discussion groups, newsgroups, and even one-to-one correspondence. A Web page labelled "Free Speech on the Net" offers the following as advice: "If you cannot filter what irks you, ignore it," but the truth of the matter is that repeated flames need not be ignored; flaming is serious. [3]

{12} Clearly, the central issue becomes responsibility. Trying electronic communication defamation cases, attorneys may have a difficult time establishing duty and proximate cause. However, if all users bear ultimate responsibility for their accounts, then both components are more easily defined. Today's bright minds would not be able to hide behind pseudonyms and endless connecting points; instead, they would be held to any remark, positive or negative, that they have made. And, if every address is to have a definable user, flames will be more directly traceable, and proximate cause may be more easily established.

{13} In a world desperately in need of understanding and tolerance, disagreements are common. It is how participants in communications handle such disagreements that shapes today's complex social arena. Flames are serious, personal attacks possessing no relation to the spirit of cooperative learning or to active discussion, and they should be treated as such under the law. If the law does not keep pace with the ever-growing breadth and depth of technology, mankind will suffer.

For the full article, see

http://journal.law.ufl.edu/~techlaw/1/inman.html