* 현재 컨텐츠 정보를 준비 중에 있습니다.

[닫기]

The Internet is not a physical or tangible entity, but rather a giant network which interconnects innumerable smaller groups of linked computer networks. The vast use of the Internet changes the scope of harm associated with defamation. Communications on the Internet are more pervasive than print. For this reason, they have tremendous power to damage a person's reputation. Once a message enters cyberspace, millions of people worldwide can gain access to it. Any posted message or report can be republished by printing, or more commonly, by forwarding it instantly to a different location, leading to potentially endless replication. The power to defame others over the Internet is extraordinary. Therefor this article considers who are liable for the internet defamation and in what case they are responsible. The law of USA shifted from allowing liability for ISPs even when they tried to screen offensive content, to barring liability for OSPs, even when they promoted such offensive content. After congress established "Good Samaritan" immunity for OSPs as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, the courts of USA held in many case that OSPs are exempt from the responsibility for defamatory statements carried by OSPs because they cannot do editorial control against posted defamatory material. But if OSPs are completely exempt from the responsibility for defamation, a victim cannot bring a suit for damages or argue that the posted defamatory content should be removed and besides OSPs will not invest time and money in order to monitor and control the posted defamatory material. It will not bring about a good result. So I think that OSPs must be responsible for the posted information without removing it in spite of receiving notice of what defamatory material is posted on the OSPs' bulletin. I think it would seem only fair to hold OSPs to the liability standard applied to a publisher or, at least, like a book store owner or a library, to the liability standards applied to a distributor, because they have the right to exercise editorial control over those with whom it contracts and whose words it disseminates. This result will be able to maintain a balance between the development of technique of internet and the compensation of the damage which the victim puts on. In other words, this article balances the policy interest in protecting individuals against damage to their reputations with encouraging the growth of the Internet and maintaining standards of decency. And to determine whether the OSPs should have to reveal the user's identity, courts have been forced to balance the plaintiff's interest in pursuing a defamation claim against the free speech rights of anonymous speakers. Finally A more cautious approach to regulation on the Internet, and more restraint in interpreting such regulations, would allow the Internet to develop as a forum of free speech while continuing to offer legal protection to those who may be damaged by careless citizens of cyberspace.

[닫기]