It seems that the most practical view is to review the medium and gauge the nature of the expression in regards to the standard of expression for that medium. As Internet blogging provides easy access to a creative outlet as well as typically low accountability, the propensity for vulgar material to appear on the Internet is as astonishing as it is common practice. It seems that the vast majority of comments on large blog sites contain at least one, and usualy many, statements of a more insulting and equally defamatory nature. As your comment suggest that redress should be offered regardless of medium, it seems important to draw the distinction that the very nature of the medium may alter the standard for assessing harm and thereby make the medium an extremely relevant fact. I would not expect that any redress is available for libelous comments any more than there would be for libelous posts to a blog because the nature of the medium makes such sad and displeasing comments a penchant of communication in the medium.

Ultimately it is a question of how accountable should people be for what they say or write and unfortunately the internet’s ability to spread information very rapidly to total strangers makes for a stage set for conflict. Hopefully the matter will be resolved through negotiations and it will be unnecessary to litigate the matter, because litigation is not fun for anyone (or at least it shouldn’t be fun for anyone).

I certainly see your point, and I do agree so far as it goes.

I suppose the question that still concerns me is how service providers will approach these questions. Ideally, they’ll always be given a clear and reasonable cause of action, and the decision to disclose an author’s identity will be an easy one. Even so, the Blogger case centers around a tiny, spurious blog about an obscure fashion model. God only knows how many such lawsuits could spawn from Blogger’s hosted content. How many will it take before they find themselves having to regulate their bloggers’ speech more closely or drop any pretense of protecting anonymity?

Blogger is simply one example, of course, but the question applies to other gatekeepers as well.

I agree for the most part. However, this is not about stifling defamation. There is no need to prevent defamation on the Internet. Defamation be it libel or slander is not a criminal act. This is about a person who believes that they have been defamed having the ability to obtain relief for the harm caused by the defamatory comments of another. If I am defamed by another in any way shape or form, I want to be able to pursue relief for that harm.

At the same time, however, I’m reminded of the work of IP thinkers like Larry Lessig and Chris Anderson. How can you possibly begin to stifle this sort of defamation? Ask the music industry how far legal action has gotten them in terms of preventing file sharing. They’ve had tremendous recent victories, but whatever deterrent effect there’s been has been unable to stop the problem. Sharing music is even easier to prevent than defamation, because we’re talking about works that you can tag with DRM. Trying to identify and remedy defamation on the internet is looking for a needle in a stack of needles.

Options for legal recourse have lagged farther and farther behind technology for quite some time now, and it’s hard to imagine a resolution from that quarter. The real take-away might simply be that making a positive effort to manage your image online is something that everyone needs to do in this day and age.