Establishing rules for chaos . . .

In Chapter 10 of his book (We the Media), Dan Gillmor raises some interesting questions about the notions of copyright protections and libel/defamation in the vast, “uncontrolled” space known as the internet. As a writer myself (www.talesfrommydarkside.com), I was very interested in Gillmor’s discussion. While I fully support the idea that the interest should be an area where anyone, anywhere can speak freely and express his/her opinion, I believe that the same standards of respect for ownership and attribution rights should apply. Frankly, there is no difference, in my mind, if someone reprints my work in a printed newsletter or blasts it in an e-mail to thousands of subscribers. In this sense I do not believe that the internet is a vacuum where laws and standards of professional journalism do not apply.

However, there is one area where the internet IS different and we must take these differences into account when we seek to enforce our laws. Jurisdiction. Different countries—not to mention different states and municipalities within those countries—have developed their sets of laws which regulate decency, content related to business, medical and legal practices, etc. The internet poses a unique challenge for these laws because information which is posted legally in one place, may be illegal when viewed across the world (or across state lines). Unlike traditional mediums, such as television broadcasts and newspapers, authors cannot restrict where users access the information being offered.

To meet this challenge, there are several options, two of which Gillmor mentions. 1) a process of zoning, through which content IS tailored to a particular audience, depending on where the content is being accessed, and 2) and inter (or supra) governmental body which would set standards and guidelines for copyright and libel/defamation issues. As for #1, I am weary when information is being censored before I see it (so, unlike blurring out offensive images or “bleeping” offensive language, I wouldn’t even know what I’m being forbidden to see or hear.) And #2 seems quite unlikely, given the underwhelming success of the United Nations and its associated organization to find a consensus on world opinion and enforce it. (And it would be quite unrealistic to expect an intergovernmental body to do what states and national governments can’t even agree upon. (i.e. copyright restrictions and the bounds of Free Speech.)