1. Agents of Harm or Agents of Grace The Legal and Ethical Aspects of Identifying Harm and Assigning Responsibility in a Networked World By Thomas A. Lipinski, Elizabeth A. Buchanan, and Johannes J. Britz

2. Introduction and Background Defamation-an action that requires the plaintiff that has been exposed to public ridicule that has injured the professional standing in the community.

3. Four Elements to Defamation A false and defamatory statement That is published to one or more third parties without privilege. By a publisher who is at least negligent in communicating the information. The results in presumed or actual damage.

4. Defamation Online Developing laws are inconsistent. One approach is to apply the distributor and publisher distinction. Vicarious Liability-if the service provider has control of the operator then it shares in legal responsibility for his/her actions.

5. Section 230 Enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act. Information intermediaries are immune from any liability as publisher when they take actions to limit the content of information on their system. The trend of developing laws based on section 230 is to indemnify online intermediaries from liability.

6. Legal Implications Who remains liable then for the defamation online? Traditional intermediaries are held to the higher standard. The only party to seek remedy from is the defamer. Pro-Plaintiff common wealth standard vs. online speaker-only liability underscores the need for a uniform internet standard.

7. Actions of another Country. England is known as the plaintiff's jurisdiction. The statement is considered false until proven otherwise. The defendant must prove the truthfulness of the statement.

8. Cont. Three elements must pass for the defendant to be not guilty. He was not the author, editor,or the publisher of the statement. Took reasonable care in relation to the publication. He didn’t know and had no reason to believe, that what he did cause or contribute to the defamation statement.

9. Anonymous and Defamatory speech on the Internet. When should a anonymous poster’s identity be revealed? Three tests developed by the court to reveal the identity. ‘Legal Merit’-shows the court has jurisdiction. ‘Good faith’ “External” claim is valid. “Internal”-defendant must act in good faith. ‘Necessity’-there is some urgent need for the information or there is no other source.

10. Section 512 The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) contains a section that provides some legal protection to online intermediaries. Contains a subpoena provision which allows intermediaries to give up user information in cases where copyright infringement has occurred.

11. Morality vs. Legality Moral values is based on Kant, Habermas, Rawls, and Singer. Authors argue in favor of human rights as a framework to regulate the internet and ISPs. Two approaches. Communitarian Liberalist A balance approach is proposed.

12. Unsatisfactory Law Current laws treat ISPs as publishers, distributors, or common carriers. This is a line of thinking that doesn’t take into account the nature of ISPs. Either strict responsibility or strict non- responsibility must be determined, there has been no exploration of shared responsibility.

13. On one hand, holding ISPs liable across the board would have a worldwide affect on free speech and lead to unfair treatment of ISPs and their members. Conversely, to find them specifically blameless could leave individuals affected by defamation without moral or legal protection in cyberspace. An ISP is not an inanimate object. It is a living, dynamic entity that can assume responsibility for its acts.

14. Nature of ISPs Cannot be categorized specifically as publishers, distributors, and or common carriers. Can act as one or all of these depending on the specific context.

15. Four ways defamation can occur via an ISP E-mail sent to single users (and/or forwarded to others) Comments posted on listservs Comments posted on Usenet boards Defamatory comments on websites.

16. What can ISPs be held liable for? This depends on variables such as The level of the ISPs knowledge about the messages What role (carrier, publisher, etc) it assumed To what extent it assumed this role

17. Responsibility Responsibility relates to accountability, blame, and punishment. 3 levels can be assigned to ISPs: Functional – the ISP is responsible to see that information is communicated effectively. Legal - (based on minimum moral consensus) Moral – based on a shared set of core values to which a society adheres.

18. The authors support applying moral responsibility. There are two types of reasoning for moral responsibility: Communitarian approach – emphasizes the collective responsibility to society as a whole. Libertarian – rights of the individual more important that community rights.

19. Conclusion Two proposals for legal handling: Restore distributor liability before section 230 (a know or reason to know standard) before it became a complete immunity standard. Impose a ‘should know’ standard that encourages investigation.