What, if anything, should website admins do when users post threatening messages on-line? Internet law experts generally agree there is no legal onus on site owners or users to notify police. Investigating each and every threatening post from what is essentially mostly anonymous visitors would be impossibly time-consuming and expensive.
On-line chat rooms have quickly mushroomed into virtual communities where people can reinvent themselves behind screen names. But on-line forums can also free some users to post exaggerations or lies, making it difficult for webmasters to distinguish fact from fiction. And many of those message boards are patrolled by volunteers who may not be able to recognize a problem because they are young and/or not trained as mental health professionals.
During the past few years, a handful of chat room users who published violent messages have been prosecuted, but such threats rarely are carried out, legal experts say. Websites where the threats are posted are rarely sued because they're not legally bound to alert police, said Nicolas Terry, an Internet law expert at Saint Louis University's Center for Health Law Studies.
News source: The Globe and Mail
On-line chat rooms have quickly mushroomed into virtual communities where people can reinvent themselves behind screen names. But on-line forums can also free some users to post exaggerations or lies, making it difficult for webmasters to distinguish fact from fiction. And many of those message boards are patrolled by volunteers who may not be able to recognize a problem because they are young and/or not trained as mental health professionals.
During the past few years, a handful of chat room users who published violent messages have been prosecuted, but such threats rarely are carried out, legal experts say. Websites where the threats are posted are rarely sued because they're not legally bound to alert police, said Nicolas Terry, an Internet law expert at Saint Louis University's Center for Health Law Studies.
News source: The Globe and Mail
"It is very risky to impose responsibility on website owners to police their users," said Jennifer Granick, executive director of Stanford University's Center for Internet and Society. "How do you know if someone is serious? Are you making a big deal out of nothing? How hard are you supposed to try? Are you betraying the person?"
Still, ethicists say operators should try to alert authorities if they believe a user is serious about committing harm. "If there are signs that people are going off the deep end and we don't do anything about it, then it could have calamitous results," said Richard Spinello, a Boston College professor who specializes in technology and ethics.
Complicating the matter are privacy laws and website policies that prohibit operators from surrendering personal user information to the government, unless there is an immediate danger.
Seriously though, I agree with you (it is non-sense
anyhow, back on topic... i don't think you can hold the admins of a site responsible for threats posted unless they did the threatening themselves. the admins are there to keep order, not censor people. i mean, if someone actually feels threatened then they should take it up with the admins to take appropriate action and maybe go to the police. i've had people threaten me, but do i always feel threatened? no.
If administrators of certain communities started reporting threats to the police, you could end up with an aweful lot of work being created thanks to a load of angst teens. I wouldn't be sure its worth anyone's time in doing so.
There are worse things though, such as prosecuting gun sellers who sell guns to murderers. But I'd love to see how this issue pans out.
"Umm. Neobond? Yeah, this is Kofee Anan, and I'm here to let you know that your driving license has been lifted. Uhuh. Very much. I'm sorr-. No, no, I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Come this way please...."
"You, Neobond, are hereby sentenced to 1100 years in the Chokee, because you did not report a post from a man claiming that he 'Wants to murder Bill Gates' Though Gates is alive, its not thanks to you"
It just isn't justifiable
It wasn't easy, 'casue this guy would change his MAC addy and then log back in under a new name and a new e-mail adress. Eventualy, we installed a little peice of software that would check for MAC spoofing. That fixed his little red wagon, fixed it good.
Its pretty simple, no.
A good comparison is the internet with a telephone service
Ok, so it's not a perfect analogy, but what is?
A better comparison is a bar with a website.
In a bar diferent people come in and out and drinking a beer, sometimes there are fights.
The bar owner is responsible, he is the one that should call the police when something goes wrong.
And yet I just did. How about that.
Oh, and the bar owner's responisbility is limited, usualy only to ensuring that the fire code, health code, and so on are observed & obeyed, and to see to it that there are no minors (or people who are otherwise not leagaly allowed to be in bars) in his bar. He may also have some responsibility to ensure that nobody drinks to much, but this isn't generaly enforced very well (it varies widely from juristiction to juristiction). So If I walk into a bar and start a fight, the bar owner isn't responsible for my actions just becasue they happened to occur within his establishment.... and your whole argument sort of falls apart right there, doesn't it?
Unfortunatly, a bar is not an electronic exchange of information, nor is it a mechenism for the exchange of such. So, I don't see how a bar is any better a vehicle for an annalogy for the internet than a telephone is, considering very few Telcos own and/or operate drinking establishment that are regulated by the FCC (Or, for that matter, not regulated by the FCC). Strangely enough, people use telephones to exchange information and as a forum for the exchange of ideas. Some even use it to (GASP!) threaten others. And it's all electronic. I sense an annalogy coming on.
Are website administrators responsible for posted threats?
Yes they are.
The administrators are responsible for their own website and the content of the website.
They choose to start the website, they know that there are all kinds of people in this world.
If it's good they can track down the IP, there is a database, they can ban the user and report it to the persons ISP.
If you choose to start the website do you only want to pro and not the cons?
So the administrator wants only pros, I think that says enough about the administrator.
my 2 cents
From a hotel, where he didn't give his real name and paid in cash. From a cybercafe where he kept his face away from the security camera. From a phone booth with a laptop. By wardriveing suburbia with a WiFi card. By breaking into an apratment and "borrowing" the computer that was there, and then trashing the place and taking the computer with him.
(Don't think that last one can't happen to you. Secure your local login, kiddies.)
Lots of different ways to remain annonymous on the internet, and those are just the obvious ones.
But I don't think you can blame the web admin. If it's a forum or something, any visitor can call the police too, and if they think there's a serious threat going on, they should call 'em.
It happened in spain a while ago, somebody saw something strange in a chatroom, called the police, and saved a life.
A bit off topic, here in spain the new anti-tobacco law makes EMPLOYERS responsible if they employees smoke at work. It's the employer who has to pay the fines.
I don't think you can really say that web admins are responsible for ANYTHING that happens in their website.
They are FULLY responsible for the content.
If they don't take the full responability they should not have started a website.
If there are real serious threats the administrator should contact the webmaster so the webmaster can contact the police.
Actual threats are not very frequent, I suppose. And they're difficult to track.
Please explain...
With actual threats I mean that internet forums/chats may be full of insults, threats and disrespective posts, but most of them will just stay 'within the internet'.
How can you difference those from actual RealLife (TM) threats?
I still think that if people see something suspicious, it's people who should call the police, and not blame the webmaster/webadmin.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.