Sunday, September 20, 2009

Internet expression, long-held rights come into conflict

Internet expression, long-held rights come into conflict
Anonymity of some threatened; others try to bury public records

By MARY FLOOD HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Sept. 20, 2009, 9:52PM


Freedom of expression may seem boundless on the Internet, but in Houston and around the nation, computer users are increasingly finding their speech is not infinitely protected.
Recent Harris County cases have shown that the worldwide forum offered by the Internet ups the ante and consequences of everything from idle chatter to the information in public records.
Dave Heller, staff lawyer for the Media Law Resource Center in New York, said anonymous bloggers and commenters might have “reason to pause in the current climate” because of cases around the country where judges have ordered their names revealed in court cases.
At the same time, he said, courts are trying to strike a balance between public access and privacy as their own records become more accessible.
“Some people are naturally freaked out,” he said, when public documents move from musty courthouses to online.
What was gossip over coffee before the Internet becomes a permanent stain viewable by the universe once posted. What were once obscure but long-public government documents, become potential identity theft time bombs and privacy invasion headaches when easily accessible online.
In Houston just this summer, the specific demands of the law smashed up against the Web in these instances involving speech and public records:
• • Two bloggers who posted their opinions or hosted the thoughts of others about Anna Nicole Smith's mother were stunned when they were jailed for contempt of court for refusing to give the court their computers for forensic review.
• • A man accused of killing his girlfriend's 4-year-old girl subpoenaed six local media outlets to learn the identities of 300 people who posted comments on news stories about the case.
• • Two judges issued orders to protect attorneys' personal information from making its way onto the Internet even though it was public record.
• • As county records are loaded online, judges in family courts have requested some public records remain harder to get for now.
Courts continually struggle to interpret and apply free speech and privacy laws that were written generations ago with newspapers in mind, said Chip Babcock, a Texas media lawyer who represents journalist Art Harris, sued along with several bloggers in the defamation case filed by Anna Nicole Smith's mother, Virgie Arthur. “The Internet is such a powerful tool and such a potentially intrusive thing that judges are being pulled away from the model.”
In the Arthur defamation case, Harris County District Judge Tony Lindsay temporarily imprisoned two bloggers and confiscated the computers of Babcock's entertainment journalist client.
Identities sought
A more common problem for bloggers and commenters is losing just their anonymity when they've made negative comments and are sued for defamation.
Locally, Bert Steinmann, lawyer for Lucas Coe accused in the blunt-force trauma death of 4-year-old Emma Thompson, said he wants the identities of the anonymous commenters to keep them off the jury if they exhibited bias, to see if a motion to move the case is necessary and to possibly question some about their apparent first-hand knowledge of the case.
Most newspapers and electronic media fight back to some extent but most also post warnings that the media will relinquish identity information if required to in a legal proceeding. Trying to keep everyday speech on these Web sites secret has been a losing battle.
Another battleground
Another place law and the Internet are clashing locally is in district courts as Harris County District Clerk Loren Jackson is swiftly updating the system and putting public records online.
Jackson said family court judges have asked him to hold off putting their files online because of concern for some private information. Two criminal court judges recently issued orders, one later rescinded, telling Jackson not to place certain personal financial information about attorneys online, though the information is also public.
He said people call his office sometimes asking that public information be redacted from files now that those files are on the Internet. But he said his office doesn't make that decision; judges do.
These growing pains are likely to continue as local and federal the laws are applied to the content on the Internet, which the U.S. Supreme Court has called essentially the most democratic mass media ever invented.
mary.flood@chron.com
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6628615.html

No comments:

Post a Comment

we hope you enjoy our blog.
we do not delete posts due to conflicts.
feel free to post away.