Donald Sensing mentions that web-hostile Bill O'Reilly thinks the internet needs to be made "safe for democracy", but that opinion belies a profound misunderstanding of democracy. As the Iraqis are discovering, democracy doesn't need to be safely provided for: democracy itself constructs a safe environment to exist within by making it hard for the elites to hold power, and by distributing power to the masses.
Democratic power is primarily established by the right to keep and bear arms, and secondarily by the rights to private property, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association, &c. These rights are the foundation of a liberal democratic society, and they don't need any external management to protect them. Naturally, the self-styled "elite" would like to administrate these rights -- for the benefit of all! -- but top-down interference actually ends up making democracy and freedom less secure, rather than more. The "elite" are well-aware of this fact, and they seek to make us all less free so as to accumulate power for themselves. It's fine that they try (that's the essence of competition), but it doesn't mean they're right or that we should let them succeed.
The main problem with the Internet "press" -- news sites, blogs, or what ever, is in the area of libel law. It may become increasingly difficult to protect oneself from false allegations that result in damages. However, nothing that O'Reilly proposes is any kind of solution. Further, O'Reilly thinks he should be able to sue every time someone calls him a liar, stupid, etc., even though he himself knows how to dish it out. "Liar" type allegations are rarely actionable words, however, and for good reason.
How is libel law a problem with the internet press? Libel can be prosecuted, just as if it were any other form of media. Do you mean that targets of libel will be less able to protect themselves by suing the libelers? That may be true, but I'm not exactly sure how that follows from the internet.
Many of those who run internet sites or post comments have far fewer assets than mainstream media. If you are an average person, good luck trying to get an attorney to help you file a case in which the person being sued doesn't have anything to take.
Most blogs allow anonymous comments. It can be much more difficult and or impractical to trace such comment posters.
Also, many jurors are likley (IMO) to take a free-for-all attitude toward the internet.
Newspapers are not allowed to escape responsilbity for allegations made in letters they print, but many bloggers have tried to claim that they aren't responsible for what gets posted. It is an evolving area of libel law, I think.
To sue for libel someone who has posted a comment on a blog, one must often get past fictious names, or again anonymous posts. If comments are posted from a library or school computer, the process of getting the ISP to release information can be complicated. If the library doesn't keep careful logs of who is using what computer, that could be a problem, too.
Also, how much time does a blogger have to remove libelous comments? A newspaper prints letters after they have reviewed them. Blogs tend to post immediately and the comments are only reviewed later for possible deletion.
I see what you're saying, but for the same reasons that it's hard to track down a libeler, internet libel will also be much less likely to actually cause any damage. Anonymous people attacking each other under won't affect many reputations, I don't think.
Also, I don't see libel as much of a problem. I don't think it's good to spread lies about people, but generally the best solution to speech you don't like is more speech, correcting the errors. That's not to say we should eliminate libel laws, I just don't think most people give much credit to unsubstantiated verbal attacks.
Michael, I have just blogged an excerpt from this post with a link to you. My previous post, earlier today, may be of interest to you.
It's about a first experiment of online discussion being carried out by The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School.
Anyone is invited to join in the ongoing discussion. It's free. Hope you will find it of interest - and, join in!
Cool. That online discussion does look pretty neat, thanks for the pointer.