Defending Information

[Halx]

I would like to clue the members of the TFP in on what is happening right now. First, a little history.

In 2003, a discussion took place on this forum about under-aged models and their exploited sexuality. An article was posted about an eight year old who models in clothes that make her just a little too sexy for her age. The resulting discussion reflected outrage from the TFP members, but there was very little else. That's not really why I'm posting this though.

The thread was indexed by Google and was available by search to anyone who was looking for this particular article. An advocate for the parties mentioned in the article happened to be searching for it, and found us. They are now in talks with our host, ServInt, to try and get the article removed.

The TFP and ServInt are protected by the Freedom of Information Act, which protects website owners and hosts from the content that users happen to post. There really is no contest, but that is still not what this discussion is about.

What I am getting at is... what happens when you try to erase something that has already been said?

I have extended an invitation to this advocate to come to the TFP and open a discussion about this topic that will shed some light on the truths surrounding the article that is causing so much grief for him. Rather than squelch false information, I would like to see opposing information posted beside it and have discussion take place.

The internet is a place where information is not always reliable. With today's social environment, if enough people insisted, 2 + 2 could equal 5. Its still important to have all sides of the story represented. If stories are suppressed, they will come back with ten times the publicity.

You can't control what is said on the internet. You can't make content go away. You can, however, make your own story heard. You can play the old game with the new rules.

[MSD]

Originally Posted by Halx

The TFP and ServInt are protected by the Freedom of Information Act, which protects website owners and hosts from the content that users happen to post.

As far as I know, the FOIA is entirely related to requiring the government to operate more transparently and has nothing to do with private entities. I'd like to see what section you've found that covers Internet forums.

[Jinn]

I believe he meant the Federal Communications Decency Act, but you've just illustrated precisely what he was talking about.

DuPage County Circuit Judge Hollis Webster dismissed a lawsuit challenging the protection given website operators who distribute allegedly defamatory material. Webster said the Federal Communications Decency Act protects distributors of allegedly defamatory material on the Internet. "Our federal lawmakers have determined that a national, consistent Law protecting websites upon which allegedly defamatory statements are published, from civil liability is appropriate. This court will remain consistent with the courts in other states, and on the federal level in interpreting the Communications Decency Act."

Batzel v. Smith, 2003 US App.LEXIS 12736 (9th Cir. 2003). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a listserv moderator and operator of a website that allegedly published defamatory material provided by a third party is eligible for immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA).

And what about the 'communications decency act'? In a landmark 1997 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Internet is a unique medium entitled to the highest protection under the free speech protections of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. It's more complicated than that of course, but you can look it up yourself.

Bidbay.com Inc. v. Spry, No. B160126 (Cal. Ct. App, 2d App. Dist., 2003). A California court ruled on Internet chat rooms and the First Amendment. Plaintiff Bidbay.com brought a suit for defamation against Bruce Spry for posting allegedly libelous statements in an online chat room. Spry moved to dismiss the action under California's anti-strategic lawsuits against public participation law (Anti-SLAPP law). California's Anti-SLAPP law allows courts to strike causes of action arising from a defendant's exercise of free speech in a public forum in connection with a public issue. Bidbay.com argued that the Anti-SLAPP law did not apply because the online chat room was not a public forum because it had prevented Bidbay from posting a rebuttal to the statements. The court disagreed and dismissed the case stating that an online chat room is a public forum, even if the operator of the chat room controls the content of the statements posted on the site.

LAWSUITS AGAINST WEBSITE POSTERS

Several court decisions have protected statements made on websites.

In Doe v. 2themart.com Inc., a 2001 decision allowed a pseudonymous message board poster to retain his or her anonymity. "The Internet is a truly democratic forum for communication," the court wrote in its opinion. "It allows for the free exchange of ideas at an unprecedented speed and scale. For this reason, the constitutional rights of Internet users, including the First Amendment right to speak anonymously, must be carefully safeguarded."

In McIntyre v. the Ohio Elections Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court gave anonymous free speech special protection, writing: "the right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But ... our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse."

[jewels]

The Brisbane schoolgirl works for her father's adult modelling business, Women Model Agency, and is hot property among Asian businessmen, keen to use her "look" to advertise their products.

But, while her parents have defended their decision to allow Morgan to pose as an adult in front of the cameras

I would only wonder why the change of heart?

Even if the case is that the parents changed their minds, thinking about their daughter's potential future, they should inform the people who've read the story as to why they feel this way. Attempting to pretend that nothing's happened won't make anything go away.

People understand honesty and truth. What they don't like is politics. You can't pretend the past didn't happen. But you can use the same medium to explain.

Originally Posted by halx

You can't control what is said on the internet. You can't make content go away. You can, however, make your own story heard. You can play the old game with the new rules.

'Nuff said.

[Halx]

Thank you for that correction.

[Fotzlid]

Another forum I belong to had a similar situation not too long ago.
An article was posted and everyone lambasted the parties involved. One of the parties found the site by searching and joined the forum to present their side.
It turned into a flame war.

I would only wonder why the change of heart?

Possibly legal reasons. If they can get negative references removed from the net, the other side can't use it against them.

[Halx]

I'd like to think that if that happened here, it would be a tad more civil. At least from the TFPers side.

[Fotzlid]

I would hope so too, but I thought the same of the other site as well. Some things stir up stong reactions.

[mixedmedia]

So, I am a little confused...they are wanting to have the thread removed including the discussion about the article? Or just the posted excerpts of the article itself?

[Halx]

I'm not entirely certain. Obviously, they have to draw focus to a specific point in order to drum up a case. Their "point" is that the article appears altered from its original form and is thus libel. This cannot be enforced, but their point puts focus on just the posted article itself. If it were possible though, it seems like the whole topic would be under fire.

[ratbastid]

Re the invitation for them to come argue their side--its a gentlemanly offer, but I'm sure they'd rather the whole embarrassing thing just go away. I put the odds of them taking you up on it as slim to none.

[Halx]

I agree with you. I just wanted to make my point that this is how the world is turning these days.

[snowy]

I don't see why we're being picked on. A search for the name of the girl in the article fielded 1,290 results on Google, including a Wikipedia article.

[mixedmedia]

Well, yeah I'd pretty much sum this up as a 'shit out of luck' situation for these parents. Now you know better. I can't imagine how they could justify removing a four-year-old thread on an internet forum.

After a little Google search I see that this girl is making some minor news again in Australia because of some controversy over a 12 year old model there being picked as 'the face' of some fashion show for adults. They're probably just engaging in what they think is 'damage control' for their daughter's career.

oops, wait...no it was last September when that happened.

[girldetective]

Wait a minute! Wasnt the article posted from another source? Are these people looking to eradicate the original article and all sites that may have referenced it or only those that Google indexed?

[ASU2003]

You can't go back in time to re-write history unless it was wrongly recorded and new information has come out.

But, I saw the pictures and I don't see what the problem is. And the article is even tamer.

The only area I could see them having a point on is that her name should be taken out or changed to just her initials. Going through Junior High and High School where people can google your name and find out stuff like that isn't good.

[SSJTWIZTA]

if he succeeds in removing the article i will have lost all faith in america once and for all. I believe that this "advocate" should in fact come to the tfp and open a discussion.

i just googled the name of the girl in the article and i see nothing wrong with the photos. now, if she dressed like that every day in public, that would be quite different.

thats my drunken 2 cents.

[little_tippler]

I find something wrong with an 8 year old being portrayed as older, in a "sexualized" way, because it seems twisted that magazines would publish pictures of these girls that many women may aspire to be like (including young girls of that age even), and men may aspire to be with (that is pretty sick).

Apart from that, I believe that since we are no longer in an age of censure, book burning, and tyranny, an online forum discussion is like being in a room with people having a private conversation, and so it seems really strange to me that this "advocate" and the people who wrote the article actually think they have any right to stop people from sharing their opinions with their friends. Whatever was said was not said directly to those people nor has it had any significant impact on how they are publicly viewed, nor was what was said published in any official context, so I find the claim of defamation pretty far-fetched.

I also agree that there are so many articles and discussions out there on this girl and others more recently (for example, model Maddison Gabriel who is 12), that it seems a bit loopy to come and pick on our particular chat.

They should actually go after the Australian PM, who in relation to Maddison Gabriel winning a modelling award in Sep. 2007 according to the UK's Daily Mail said that catapulting girls as young as 12 into something like that is outrageous.