Bloggers responsible for their commenters?

From MeFi:

|AMP|#8220;Senator John McCain (R. - AZ) has introduced legislation [PDF] that would hold blogs responsible for all activity in their comments sections and user profiles. Provisions of the proposed bill include: (1) commercial websites and personal blogs "would be required to report illegal images or videos posted by their users or pay fines of up to $300,000," (2) bloggers with comment sections may face "even stiffer penalties" than ISPs, and (3) any social-networking site must take "effective measures" to remove any Web page that's "associated" with a sex offender. "Because 'social-networking site' isn't defined, it could encompass far more than just MySpace.com, Friendster and similar sites." The list could include any site that allows comments, author [sic] and personal profiles. Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes that this proposal may be based more "on fear or political considerations rather than on the facts." "McCain's [sic] legislation could deal a serious blow to the blogosphere. Lacking resources to police their sites, many individual blogs may have to shut down open discussion."*

Rut roh. Fining bloggers up to $300,000 for the comments they inspire? Write your congressmen and congresswomen, people!


We've seen a lot of legislative proposals in the last ten years seeking to regulate the internet. I don't have a problem with requiring bloggers (or anyone else) to remove copyrighted or illegal material from their blogs, or even from their comments. I do have a problem with making bloggers responsible for content that does not originate from them. The "easy" way to solve this problem, from the blogger's perspective, would be to screen all comments, but big blogs (like Wil Wheaton's, or community blogs like MeFi or Slashdot), that's pretty much a full-time job in and of itself. Perhaps more importantly, one of the great things about unscreened comments is that users know they aren't being censored, and neither is anyone else. Furthermore, isn't $300,000 a bit excessive for a personal blog? Yikes.


Then there's the social networking/sex offender issue. Many social networking sites tout business networking as their primary functions, and even the infamous MySpace has age restrictions. The ex-sex offender issue is particularly biting: sex offenders have served their debt to society, yet they ostensibly have a high rate of recidivism (although recent studies suggest that rates of recidivism are falling). My home state of California recently passed a bill requiring high-risk sex-offenders to wear a tracking device for their entire lives after release from prison. As Lanier pointed out when we were discussing the bill during the election, a state-sponsored optional program could actually benefit former offenders, because their whereabouts would be established at all times (so if they were falsely accused, they could potentially demonstrate their innocence) and because the positioning devices may serve as a deterrent. A mandatory program, on the other hand, has the effect of punishing people who have already been punished according to their crime by violating their right to privacy.


Beyond that, it's easy enough for someone to falsify personal information and obtain an account that would not immediately identify them as a sex offender if indeed they are. Holding social networking sites responsible for viewing literally every page on their sites and knowing the identities of all sex offenders well enough to determine if a page is "associated" with them, regardless of purported identity, is absurd.


Perhaps you disagree? Comments, as always, are welcome.