Troy NealWednesdayMar 14 at 852pmManage Discussion EntryJRN41.docx

Troy Neal
WednesdayMar 14 at 8:52pm
Manage Discussion Entry
JRN410 – Blogging and Privacy Protection – Discussion 2
[Week 4]
Troy Neal
The internet since its inception has grown larger than
anyone could have possibly imagined back when it was first
introduced in the early 1990’s. However, with the evolution of
the internet and its availability, internet laws have also evolved,
although arguably still behind the times.
CampusTrashMouth and their blog style website
could be compelled to give up the identity of their anonymous
bloggers, but it would be improbable in a court of law. Section
230 of the Communications Decency Act is a common name for
Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and is a piece of
legislation that states, “no provider or user of an interactive
computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of
any information provided by another information content
provider.” (US Congress, 1996) Basically stating in the case of
CampusTrashMouth, they would be considered intermediates
rather than publishers.
In 1994 Prodigy, an early provider of online services
was found to be legally liable for a defamatory anonymous
posting on one of its message boards. However, in 1996 the
United States Congress passed section 230 of CDA which is
why Bob would most likely lose his pending lawsuit. Section
230 is a controversial piece of legislation because up until
recently the court rulings had been very one-sided in favor of
immunity for those who post anonymously online. With the
ever-changing laws and growing concerns over online bullying
section, 230 has come under considerable scrutiny and
continues to be challenged with each and every new case.
References
United States Congress. (1996). 47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection

for private blocking and screening of offensive material.
Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
(Links to an external site.)
ROCRASTINATION
LAGIERISM
&
Plagiarism
Today’s Economic Challenges 2017
Today’s Economic ChallengesBitcoinMinimum WageCapital
Gains TaxOffshore BankingCorporate TaxOnline Sales
TaxEconomic StimulusOvertime PayEqual PayPaid Sick
LeaveEstate TaxPension ReformFarm SubsidiesProperty
TaxesFederal ReservePuerto Rico BailoutGovernment
PensionsWall Street AccountabilityGovernment
SpendingWelfareLabor UnionsWelfare Drug Testing
Oh, the morality: why ethics matters in economics is because
“Economic Challenges” are ethical Issues

5
The U.S. trade deficit: America today imports almost twice as
much merchandise as it exports.
Our relentlessly growing trade deficit is now over $700 billion
annually, translates to almost 300,000 lost American jobs.
With this deficit the country’s reliance on foreign borrowing
has increased, and foreign creditors now provide two-thirds of
America’s net domestic investment.
Today we owe the rest of the world about $4 trillion—over
twice what we owed in 2000.
Today’s Economic Challenges
6

Changing attitudes toward work: Americans now work 20
percent more than in 1970.
But the American work ethic is disappearing:
Only one in three persons believes that hard work pays off in
the end.
People are less interested in work than in looking out for
themselves.
With increased education, we are rearranging our ideas about
what we want from life.
People want meaningful and challenging work that offers us
autonomy and self-development.
Today’s Economic Challenges
7

Chapter Five: Corporations
8
8
The Corporation
A corporation is a three-part organization made up of:
Stockholders, who provide the capital, own the corporation, and
enjoy liability limited to the amount of their investments
Managers, who run the business operations
Employees, who produce the goods and services
9

The Corporation
A corporation is an independent legal entity, separate from the
people who own, control, and manage it. In other words,
corporation and tax laws view the corporation as a legal
"person" that can enter into contracts, incur debts, and pay taxes
apart from its owners.
A corporation does not dissolve when its owners (shareholders)
change or die, and the owners of a corporation have limited
liability -- that is, they are not personally responsible for the
corporation's debts.
10

The Limited Liability Company
The concept of limited liability: Members of a corporation are
financially responsible for the debts of the organization only up
to the extent of their investments.
11
Kinds of corporations: For-profit, nonprofit; privately owned or
owned wholly or in part by the government; privately or
publicly held.
Evolution of the corporation:
The corporate form developed during the Middle Ages.
The first corporations were towns, universities and religious
orders, chartered by government and regulated by public statute.

12
The birth of the corporation: These enterprises began in 1600,
when Queen Elizabeth I granted a group of merchants the right
to be “one body corporate” and hold a trading monopoly to the
East Indies.
The pooling of capital: Members of the earliest corporations
financed voyages and absorbed the losses individually if vessels
sank – since ships became larger and more expensive, buyers
had to pool capital and share the losses.
13

Corporate Moral Agency
Corporations as legal persons: In the eyes of the law,
corporations are legal persons.
This means they enjoy rights and protections that any ordinary
individuals do.
These include the right to free speech, due process, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, jury trial, and freedom from
double jeopardy.
14
Can corporations make moral decisions? Many argue that only
the individuals within the structure can act morally or
immorally, and can be consequently held morally responsible
for their actions.
Others disagree as to whether the structure as a whole can be
liable for criminal offenses and punishable by the law.
Not every form of punishment can be applied to corporations.

15
Reflection
Questions ?
This week
Management Ethics
Reflection Questions
1. Are corporations moral agents? Do they have moral
responsibilities? Or, in your view, do only human beings have
moral agency and moral obligations?
Chap 5 – Corporations
Vanishing individual responsibility: One response to the
tendency of vanishing individual responsibility is to attribute
moral agency to the corporation itself.

Another response is to refuse to let individuals duck their
personal responsibility.
18
Rival Views of Corporate Responsibility
Rival views of corporate responsibility: The debate over
corporate responsibility involves several elements:
Whether it should be construed narrowly to cover only profit
maximization
Whether it should be considered more broadly to include acting
morally, refraining from socially undesirable behavior, and
contributing actively and directly to the public good
19

The narrow view: profit maximization: In his book Capitalism
and Freedom, economist Milton Friedman (1912–2006) argues
that diverting corporations from the pursuit of profit makes our
economic system less efficient.
Business’s only social responsibility is to make money within
the rules of the game.
Private enterprise should not be forced to undertake public
responsibilities that properly belong to government.
20

Milton Friedman (7/31/1912-11/16/06) American Economist
Broader view – corporate social responsibility:
Says that a corporation has obligations not only to its
stockholders, but to all other constituencies that affect, or are
affected by, its behavior
This includes all parties that have a stake in what the
corporation does or doesn’t do – employees, customers, and the
public at large
It is sometimes called the social entity model or the stakeholder
model
22
Broader view – corporate social responsibility:
The relationship between business and society is seen as an
implicit social contract that requires business to operate in

socially beneficial ways.
Corporations must take responsibility for the unintended side
effects of their business transactions (externalities) and weigh
the full social costs of their activities.
23
…………..“However, the workers assembling iPhones, iPads
and other devices often labor in harsh conditions, according to
employees inside those plants, worker advocates and documents
published by companies themselves. Problems are as varied as
onerous work environments and serious — sometimes deadly —
safety problems.”
“Employees work excessive overtime, in some cases seven days
a week, and live in crowded dorms. Some say they stand so long
that their legs swell until they can hardly walk. Under-age
workers have helped build Apple’s products, and the company’s
suppliers have improperly disposed of hazardous waste and
falsified records, according to company reports and advocacy
groups that, within China, are often considered reliable,
independent monitors.”…………………..

In China, Human Costs Are Built Into an iPad
By CHARLES DUHIGG and DAVID BARBOZA
Published: January 25, 2012
Apple – made in China 2012 New York Times
Proponents of the narrow view argue that management’s
fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder wealth
outweighs any other obligations.
Proponents of the broader view argue that management has
responsibilities to other constituencies as well (to employees,
bondholders, and consumers).
26
Debating Corporate Responsibility
The let-government-do-it argument: The corporation has a

natural and insatiable appetite for profit and should be
controlled through a government imposed system of laws and
incentives.
Objection: Government can’t anticipate all moral corporate
moral challenges but manifests many of the same structural
characteristics that test moral behavior inside the corporation.
27
The business-can’t-handle-it argument:
Corporations lack the expertise: Corporate executives lack the
moral and social expertise to make other-than-economic
decisions.
Corporations will impose their values on us: Broadening
corporate responsibility will “materialize’’ society rather than
“moralize’’ corporate activity.
Debating Corporate Responsibility
28

This week
Management Ethics
2. Which view of corporate social responsibility—the narrow
or the broad—do you favor, and why?
Institutionalizing Ethics Within Corporations
To make ethics a priority, corporations should:
Acknowledge the importance of conducting business morally
Make a real effort to encourage their members to take moral
responsibilities seriously
End their defensiveness in the face of criticism, and invite
public discussion and review
30

Corporate moral codes: Several steps companies should take to
institutionalize ethics:
Articulate the firm’s values and goals
Adopt a moral code applicable to all members of the company
Set up a high-ranking ethics committee to oversee, develop, and
enforce the code
Incorporate ethics training into all employee-development
programs
31

Corporate culture: The set of explicit and implicit values,
beliefs, and behaviors that shape the experiences of the
members of a corporation.
Organizational theorists stress monitoring and managing
corporate culture (and understanding each corporation’s
distinctive culture) to prevent dysfunctional behavior and
processes.
Management must pay attention to the values and behavior
reinforced by its corporate culture.
32
Reflection
Questions ?

This week
Management Ethics
3. What do you think companies should do to make
themselves more moral organizations? How can they promote a
healthy moral climate inside the company?
RESPOND TO THE “FOR FURTHER REFLECTION”
QUESTIONS FOUND IN THE GREY SHADED
STUDY CORNER SECTION AT THE END OF EACH
CHAPTER.
AN 800 - 1000 WORD Reflection RESPONSE
TO THE QUESTIONS IS NEEDED TO BE
ELIGIBLE FOR FULL CREDIT.
BE PREPARED TO SHARE YOUR VIEWS DURING
CLASS DISCUSSIONS.

MANAGEMENT ETHICS
BUMGT 235 – UW-STOUT
· Tolanda Carroll
· WednesdayMar 14 at 10:14am
· Manage Discussion Entry· Blogging and Privacy Protection
· Throughout the discussions in the course, free speech and
expression protected by the First Amendment. The only thing
that will not be protected by the First Amendment is
involvement of tyrannical language. According to Pember &
Calvert (2014) “It is imperative to remember here that the First
Amendment only protects Government censorship. The First
Amendment thus does not apply or protect speech when a
company like Facebook adopts a policy of censorship” (p. 40).
The website called CampusTrashMouths.com seems to embrace
any commentary for online viewers and users. Therefore,
protecting their users by having the online communication
remaining anonymous is for privacy reasons. However, when
Doug posted the defamatory statement about Bob, it led to Bob
using the CampusTrashMouths.com because he did not know
who posted the statement. However, it will not be easy for Bob
to retrieve Doug’s name from the website, primarily if that is
the social media main content is for users to speak freely and be
anonymous. The court ruling may be either one-sided to the
decision of granting Bob, the winner of the case. As (Mandell et
al., 2017) mentioned: “courts have continued to show an
inclination to consider posts on social media platforms as more
likely to be non-defamatory hyperbole or opinion, but as with
all defamation cases, context is key.” Furthermore, if the

defamatory statement is much of an opinion that Doug wrote,
Bob would lose here because there are facts, publication, false
of light, and proof to consider in court that he may lack (Pember
& Calvert, 2014).
· Tolanda
· References
· Mandell, S. P., Baron, S. L., Salvato, C. M., Armendariz, D.
E., Arishita, M. K., Borger, J. P., & ... Zansberg, S. D. (2017).
Recent developments in media, privacy, defamation, and
advertising law. Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal,
52(2), 531-564.
·
· Pember, D. R. & Calvert, C. (2014). Mass Media. Retrieved
from
https://books.google.com/books?id=voVzCgAAQBAJ&printsec=
frontcover&dq=pember+and+calvert+19+edition&hl=en&sa=X
&ved=0ahUKEwjhzb3IiezZAhWRNd8KHSaOBeIQuwUIKjAA#
v=onepage&q=laws&f=false
· ReplyReply to Comment
· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONTroy Neal· Troy Neal
· WednesdayMar 14 at 8:52pm
· Manage Discussion Entry
· JRN410 – Blogging and Privacy Protection – Discussion 2
[Week 4]
· Troy Neal
· The internet since its inception has grown larger than
anyone could have possibly imagined back when it was first
introduced in the early 1990’s. However, with the evolution of
the internet and its availability, internet laws have also evolved,
although arguably still behind the times.
· CampusTrashMouth and their blog style website
could be compelled to give up the identity of their anonymous
bloggers, but it would be improbable in a court of law. Section
230 of the Communications Decency Act is a common name for
Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and is a piece of
legislation that states, “no provider or user of an interactive

computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of
any information provided by another information content
provider.” (US Congress, 1996) Basically stating in the case of
CampusTrashMouth, they would be considered intermediates
rather than publishers.
· In 1994 Prodigy, an early provider of online services
was found to be legally liable for a defamatory anonymous
posting on one of its message boards. However, in 1996 the
United States Congress passed section 230 of CDA which is
why Bob would most likely lose his pending lawsuit. Section
230 is a controversial piece of legislation because up until
recently the court rulings had been very one-sided in favor of
immunity for those who post anonymously online. With the
ever-changing laws and growing concerns over online bullying
section, 230 has come under considerable scrutiny and
continues to be challenged with each and every new case.
· References
· United States Congress. (1996). 47 U.S. Code § 230 -
Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive
material. Retrieved from
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 (Links to an
external site.)Links to an external site.
· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONHugh Kinnett· Hugh Kinnett
· 9:31pmMar 18 at 9:31pm
· Troy,
· I enjoyed your discussion post. Several blogs allow people to
post messages that trash other people. They are also used to
spread rumors about people that they do not like. While I do not
agree with the laws that are in place at the moment, the websites
cannot be forced to reveal the name of the people that posted
the messages. I agree that the laws need to be changed to allow
the courts to force the websites to release the names of the
anonymous posters. Do you believe the laws should be changed
to battle bullying?

· Hugh Kinnett
· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONKendra Avery· Kendra Avery
· ThursdayMar 15 at 1:51pm
· With a website such as campustrashmouths.com, which is
known to let people anonymously post about others, there seems
to be little hope for Bob to reveal someone’s identity from the
website. With the first amendment, it can let others voice their
opinions on an online message board with little repercussions.
The book states that, “While allegations of libel aimed at
material carried online are fairly common, it is unusual for such
allegations to result in full-blown lawsuits. These disputes
typically are between private parties, and a settlement rather
than a protracted court fight.” One of the reasons this website is
popular is because it keeps the posters anonymous at all times.
Bob did not like what was posted about him, so he wants to
reveal the source, but unfortunately this website was made for
things like this.
· If Bob were to try and sue the website, then one argument
would be that there are plenty of other comments on that
website pertaining to others that are in the same situation. The
website is based on opinions of others rather than stating facts.
This is where Bob’s weak spot would be considered. Bob would
have to prove that this comment on a trash talking website
caused him emotional distress or harm. “The intentional
infliction of emotional distress is a new tort and punishes a
wide range of conduct, including the publication or broadcast of
material that is outrageous and causes severe emotional distress.
Courts have made it extremely difficult for plaintiffs to win
such suits by placing a substantial burden of proof on the
injured party.”
·
· -Kendra
· Pember, D. R., & Calvert, C. (2015). Mass media law. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education

·
· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONTeresa Taylor Moore· Teresa
Taylor Moore
· FridayMar 16 at 8:33pm
· Kendra:
· The key word we are dealing with here is "opinions". Every
person has the right to their opinions about virtually anything
and they enjoy some protection for the freedom to speak their
minds about it. The problem becomes when that speech
infringes upon the rights of others and causes some type of
harm. What complicates issues for us in today's society is the
use of social media and Internet websites where those opinions
are often posted. You are right in that the website has a set of
standards to protect itself from being dragged into every
dispute by treating all cases in the same manner and not
providing information about the posters.
· Dr. Taylor Moore
· 9:40pmMar 18 at 9:40pm
· Kendra,
· I enjoyed your discussion post. I agree that the suits have
become hard to win. However, I do believe that the laws should
be changed to help with the bullying that takes place in
cyberspace. We are seeing news stories where kids are
committing suicide because of bullying in cyberspace. On the
other hand, I do believe that people have a right to their
opinion. How would both be granted without infringing on the
rights of another person? It is is a controversial topic.
· Hugh Kinnett
· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONSumiko Keil· Sumiko Keil

· Blogging and Privacy Protection
·
· Depending on the state, in most cases not likely, bloggers are
not covered by the shield law. Bob can take
campustrashmouths.com to court, however, seeing how this is a
blog post, chances are there is a good they might be able to
reveal the people that are harming other individuals. Seeing
how they can’t control their comments, it may be a good idea
for the person running the blog to make changes. I’ve seen it
before when a person tries to sue the site. However, they didn’t
have much luck with that. The only thing that can happen is
having the site shut down, but then again, the name of the blog
speaks for itself. Although we have the first amendment that
covers reporters, I would not be sure about bloggers. According
to Mataconis (2013), “Two separate points are being addressed
here. The first one is whether bloggers, along with people who
post on Twitter, Facebook, and other social media sites, have
First Amendment rights. The answer to this question is, self-
evidently, absolutely yes because, at the very least, these forms
of communication would be considered a form of speech that
would be protected under the First Amendment”. Although
Doug is defaming someone else, I’m not sure how far the
lawsuit would go. It all depends what he has said, and if he
talked about his private life. If Bob was a celebrity, I do believe
this would be a different case. The existence of so-called
“shield laws” for the protection of free sources and confidential
informants in journalism has largely followed the lead of
similar legislation designed to protect informants in criminal
proceedings (Jacquette, 2016).
· -MK
· References:
· Jacquette, D. Journalistic Ethics: Moral Responsibility in the
Media, 1st Edition.
· Mataconis, D. 2013. Bloggers, Media Shield Laws, And The
First Amendment. Retrieved from:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/bloggers-media-shield-laws-
and-the-first-amendment/
· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONJacob Coldren· Jacob Coldren
· I love reading about shield law cases where the journalist
pretty much tells judges or requesting entity to "sit on it."
There are no shield laws currently in place that protect
journalists when they refuse to reveal sources, but it has been
known that judges will lean towards the journalist's side in
order to protect free press. They know that if journalists give
up sources they will no longer be trusted by the public and this
can hinder the press as being a watchdog. Unfortunately, for
Bob, this would most likely be the view of
CampusTrashMouth.com and they would not reveal anyone's
identity. If they release the identity of one person their entire
internet empire would come crashing down like a pack of cards.
The users would no longer think that their anonymity would be
safe and therefore stop using the site. Bob could subpoena the
site, but this most likely wouldn't go far since this wouldn't be
deemed an extreme case. I have been in contact with law
enforcement who have social media pages taken down when
someone is arrested for heinous crimes.
· If poor ol' Bob decided to sue CampusTrashMouth.com for
defamation he would lose the case most likely since he would
have the burden to provide proof (Pember, D., & Calvert, C.,
2013). Since CampusTrashMouth.com isn't the one who issued
the statement and is just the platform used, Bob's case would
against them would be very thin.
· Reference
· Pember, D. R., & Calvert, C. (2013). Mass Media Law (18th
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONTeresa Taylor Moore· Teresa
Taylor Moore

· YesterdayMar 17 at 8:10am
· Jacob:
· The burden would definitely be on Bob in this case. As you
mention, even if he can provide proof that the information is
false and has caused harm, there is still the issue of the site
owner providing information on the person that left the
comment. Many Internet sites put terms in their privacy
statements that clearly indicate that they are not responsible for
comments and they do not collect identifiable information
beyond the usernames that are available on the sites. So, even if
they were ordered by a court to supply the information, it
simply may not be readily available without some technological
assistance from authorities.
· Dr. Taylor Moore
· Since social media and blogging are relatively new media,
laws are not stable about anonymous poster's. There are also
questions about when to force the Online Service Provider
(OSP) to release the name of anonymous poster's. According to
Pember and Calvert (2013), "State courts across the country are
grappling with the issue of anonymous postings and when to
allow those harmed by them to force the OSP or host in question
to disclose the poster's identity (p. 403). It would be ethical for
the OSP to release the name of the person if the message is
threatening the life of another person. On the other hand,
Pember and Calvert (2013) said, "Communication on the
Internet by non-professionals is often driven by emotion, not
thought" (p. 237). Therefore, unless the message is threatening
the life of another person, I do not see how the OSP can be
forced to release the name of the poster.
· The OSP also cannot be punished for what users post. The
OSP is thought to be the vendor. As Pember and Calvert (2013)

stated, "......network-affiliated television stations are not
responsible for defamatory content in the programming they
transmit for the networks" (p. 159). An OSP is treated like a
television network. Pember and Calvert (2013) went on to say,
"These same rules have been applied to Internet publishers as
well" (p. 159). It would be impossible to sue the website for
what another individual posted on the site.
· If I owned a site that allowed the user to post anonymous
messages, I would moderate the message boards for messages
that are threatening the life of another person. However, I
would not delete the messages posted by people when they are
venting their feelings about another person. I would also keep
the user anonymous. The First Amendment is the right for
people to express themselves in a manner that is not threatening
the safety of other people.
· References
· Pember, D. R. & Calvert, C. (2013). Mass media law (18th
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONLizette Francis· Lizette Francis
· Bob vs. CampusTrashMouth.com
· Doug’s defamatory, anonymous post about Bob on the popular
website called CampusTrashMouth.com, in the past, wouldn’t
get a second thought from me. But after reading the first six
chapters of our textbook, Mass Media Law, I can see the
conflict. CampusTrashMouth.com obviously is not as huge a
platform as say Facebook or Twitter. And even Facebook has
found themselves (temporarily) in hot water for this subject
matter. In a journal article regarding a parent attempting to sue
Facebook for not preventing his underage daughter from
creating numerous inappropriate profiles, Facebook’s defense
was as follows: “‘"Facebook rejects the notion of broad
censorship to prevent a single individual from creating a user
account and profile. To the best of my knowledge, no feasible

procedure... exists to outright restrict a particular individual's
freedom to access a website… On top of this, such a procedure
would categorically deny access to Facebook to millions of
people and implicate privacy law concerns throughout the
world. (2013)’”Although CampusTrashMouth.com’s
website/blog is on a smaller scale than Facebook, they all fall
into the category of the World Wide Web. Freedom of speech
and freedom of expression are rights we are granted by the
Constitution; sometimes they work in our best interests,
sometimes they are simply not in our favor.
· According to the video posted about the Colorado shooter and
the NY attorney, the court cannot force anyone to reveal their
sources. This decision went from a smaller CO court then was
passed to a higher NY Supreme Court and they ruled in favor of
the attorney due to Shield Law. Also, Pember & Calvert clarify,
in Chapter 4- Libel: Establishing a Case, “A libelous remark
might be made during an online real-time discussion among
users connected to an OSP (Online Service Provider). Or
defamation might be contained in a message sent to an e-mail
addressee or a blog. If the OSP is the author or originator of the
libelous message, it will be regarded as a publisher of the
material in a libel suit and be treated as a newspaper publisher
is treated. It is liable for the defamatory publication and can be
sued for libel. More commonly, however, the OSP merely
transmits what another party has posted on the system as an e-
mail or a message on a bulletin board or on a Web site. In this
case the system operator will be regarded as a vendor or
distributor rather than a publisher.” Since the website isn’t the
originator of the message, it is only the vendor; Doug, however,
is the publisher. Therefore, it’s impossible for Bob to compel
the website to reveal Doug’s identity. The reason Bob will lose
if he tries to sue for defamation would be that he cannot
technically show that the published lowered his reputation
among a significant number of right-thinking people in the
community. Also, the libelous/defamatory statements weren’t
created by the website. “The bottom line is simply this: An

online service provider is immune from a defamation suit for
transmitting defamatory matter created by a third party, unless
the Web site operator has in some way participated in the
creation of the illegal content, or has designed the Web site in
such a way that requires users who wish to post material to
input illegal content. (2015)“
·
· McAleese, Deborah (2013, March 02). Facebook legal bid
fails: Parents warned 'it's up to you' as court rejects father's
protection plea. Belfast Telegraph. Retrieved from
https://search-proquest-com.proxy-
library.ashford.edu/docview/1313921857/F6EC8531095F4312P
Q/13?accountid=32521 (Links to an external site.)Links to an
external site.
· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONGlenNeta Griffin· GlenNeta
Griffin
· Blogging and Privacy Protection
· Is it possible for Bob to compel CampusTrashMouth.com to
reveal Doug’s identity? Explain.
· Yes, it is possible for Bob to compel CampusTrashMouth.com
to reveal Doug’s identity. In some cases, judges have ordered
for websites to reveal the anonymous blogger via IP and e-mail
address if they have posted something offensive, homophobic,
or defamatory. “An interesting problem related to the matter of
reporters protecting the identity of their sources is whether or
not the parties in a lawsuit can force online service providers
(OSPs) to reveal the names of people who post anonymous
messages on the Web.”(Pember & Calvert, 2015) In some
situations, the First Amendment right to engage in anonymous
speech is not absolute and it can be overcome.

· If Bob instead sues CampusTrashMouth.com for defamation
for posting Doug’s comments, what is the primary reason Bob
will lose?
· A blogger is held to the same standards and have the same
rights as a “traditional” news entity. They can’t be held liable
for defamation unless they acted negligently. “While allegations
of libel aimed at material carried online are fairly common, it is
unusual for such allegations to result in full-blown lawsuits.”
(Pember & Calvert, 2015) CampusTrashMouth.com is an
anonymous website based on opinions and they disclosed that
they would not reveal their sources. The site is also not
exclusive to Bob. There are also other posts on the site, which
puts them in the same situations. Like all journalists and
publishers, bloggers sometimes publish information that other
people don't want published. The website also could have had a
review and privacy policy on the blog to protect them. Having
this type of policy posted on your website let’s people know
what you’re doing and how you’re doing it. It can also protect
the web page. This is why Bob could lose.
· GlenNeta Griffin
·
· Reference:
· Pember, D. R., & Calvert, C. (2015). Mass media law. New
· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONJohn Hansen· John Hansen
· FridayMar 16 at 12:25am
· According to Pember and Calvert, “It is imperative to
remember here that the First Amendment only protects
Government censorship. The First Amendment thus does not
apply or protect speech when a company like Facebook adopts a
policy of censorship” (Pember and Calvert, 2014). Because of
this I would think that the courts would feel obligated to have

CampusTrashMouth.com reveal Doug to Bob who he would then
have a defamatory case over I believe since the website can be
seen as a blog and bloggers get the same protection as
journalists and therefore can be in the same trouble as
journalists. It really depends on how the court interprets
bloggers. Most of the time though, I think public posts are
looked at as opinions.
will lose?
· I think that if Bob were to try to sue CampusTrashMouth.com
for defamation for posting Doug’s comments, the primary
reason he would lose is because according to Pember and
Calvert, “network-affiliated television stations are not
responsible for defamatory content in the programming they
transmit for the networks" (Pember and Calvert, 2014). Unless
someone who works for the website itself were to post the
hateful, defamatory messages, the site itself can have action
taken upon itself. Bob would be grasping for anything at that
moment because at the end of the day I do not see any situation
here where he wins.
· Reference
· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONGerard Garcia· Gerard Garcia
· FridayMar 16 at 12:29am
· One thing that has stayed constant throughout this course, is
understanding one of our most basic and important rights which
is our freedom of speech. As times have progressed and
changed, that freedom of speech isn’t just extended to a
physical person, or some kind of print material, but it also
extends to almost all online platforms. Social media and most
blogging sites are a few places where people regularly express
thoughts and ideas to the world.

· In this case, Bob is filing a motion towards a blogging site
named CampusTrashMouth as he believes the site is guilty of
defamation. The site in particular is completely anonymous and
allows users to post whatever they choose and people to
comment anything they desire on any given post. What he
ultimately wants is that the site reveals the identity of the
person who made the defamatory comments about him.
· This would be a difficult case for Bob as he would have to go
to great lengths prove a lot of things before the court would rule
in his favor. Interestingly, anonymous speech is also protected
by the first amendment, so trying to reveal that person’s
identity is a difficult task in itself. Bob would also need to have
enough evidence to provide to a judge that the post is in fact
about him and is defamatory. These two reasons would be
enough to rule against Bob and his case. Even though
anonymous speech is protected, there is very much a fine line
where things can go way to far. There have been many cases
where cyber bullying has caused people to do outlandish things
based off of people stating things that are untrue and
anonymously. “Once a court decides the plaintiff has enough
facts to make an initial showing of a defamation claim and can
present facts that may defeat various First Amendment defenses,
many courts will require the ISP or website to release the name
if anyone fights it” (Crabtree, 2012).
· References
· Crabtree, T. (2012, July 20). How to Identify the Anonymous
Online Defamer. Retrieved March 15, 2018, from
https://www.emedialaw.com/how-to-identify-the-anonymous-
online-defamer/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external
site.
· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONBarbara Grady· Barbara Grady
· FridayMar 16 at 6:44pm
· Week 4 discussion 2
· Barbara Grady

· Journalism Law
· Teresa Taylor Moore
· March 15, 2018
·
· Defamation is a deliberate false communication that damages
the reputation of a person in the eyes of the public. In this case,
Bob will compel CampusTrashMouth.com to reveal the identity
for Doug to take legal action if unidentified Internet posters
defame him; for instance, the case of Liskula Cohen and Skanks
in NYC. (Taylor 2010). However, his right to subpoena
CampusTrashMouth.com to disclose the identity of the posters
will be considered against the Internet posters' First Amendment
right to remain unknown. He should demonstrate that at least
one of the claims he will proclaim against the Internet posters
has legal merit and that he has taken sound steps, without
success, to identify and notify theCampusTrashMouth.com and
need the court's subpoena power for that purpose.
· However, there should also be exceptions regarding remarks
that violate intellectual. The law that protects US news websites
from losing a lawsuit over the content of their comment spaces
is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (Antoniou,
& Akrivos, 2017). It states that “No provider of a
communicating computer service shall be treated as the
originator or speaker of any material provided by another
information content provider.” including websites and social
media platforms — cannot be held liable for the consequences
of third-party content. Example, MIS Limited v Google and
others [2009] EWHC 1765. Therefore, based on this comment,
it’s most probably Bob will lose the lawsuit in case he sues
CampusTrashMouth.com for defamation.
·
· References
· Taylor, M. W. (2010). A Blogger, Google, and a Skank: An
Analysis of Whether Google Has a Fiduciary Obligation to Its
Bloggers. W. Va. L. Rev., 113, 1001.
· Antoniou, A. K., &Akrivos, D. (2017). Indecent images and

defamatory meaning in late modern societies: taking ordinary,
reasonable readers outside their ivory tower. Journal of Media
Law, 9(2), 155-172.
· Barendt, E. (2017). Defamation Law.
· COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONCharisse Gamboa· Charisse
Gamboa
· YesterdayMar 17 at 11:50pm
· “It is imperative to remember here that the First Amendment
only protects Government censorship. The First Amendment
thus does not apply or protect speech when a company like
Facebook adopts a policy of censorship” (Pember, D.R. &
Calvert, C. 2014).
· Reference
· Pember, D. R. & Calvert, C. (2014). Mass Media. Retrieved
from https://books.google.com/books?
· Bob is up against the First Amendment, as well as the
company’s privacy policies and laws. There are specifications
that the website has to protect themselves from such matters.
Obviously, this type of blog site is bound to run into legal
issues, defamation, and libel cases, so the company is prepared
for any litigation. He may be able to sue for emotional damages,
defamation, or being presented in false light. However, the case
may not even proceed due to the terms/agreements of the
website. If he plans to sue, then he must understand it can be a
very long process, as others may be in the same situation as he
is. The bottom line is, these type of freedom to express blog
sites, are open freely to the public and anonymous.
Unfortunately, there is not much of a case to force the company
to reveal Doug’s identity.
will lose?

· There is no proof of defamation by the company themselves. A
user member (Doug) has posted comments about Doug, not the
company. Every member understands the requirements before
reading or posting, and the website is not liable for any results
or opinions of others.
PreviousNext
Kendra Avery
ThursdayMar 15 at 1:51pm
With a website such as campustrashmouths.com, which is
known to let people anonymously post about others, there seems
to be little hope for Bob to reveal someone’s identity from the
website. With the first amendment, it can let others voice their
opinions on an online message board with little repercussions.
The book states that, “While allegations of libel aimed at
material carried online are fairly common, it is unusual for such
allegations to result in full-blown lawsuits. These disputes
typically are between private parties, and a settlement rather
than a protracted court fight.” One of the reasons this website is
popular is because it keeps the posters anonymous at all times.
Bob did not like what was posted about him, so he wants to
reveal the source, but unfortunately this website was made for
things like this.
If Bob were to try and sue the website, then one argument
would be that there are plenty of other comments on that
website pertaining to others that are in the same situation. The
website is based on opinions of others rather than stating facts.
This is where Bob’s weak spot would be considered. Bob would
have to prove that this comment on a trash talking website
caused him emotional distress or harm. “The intentional
infliction of emotional distress is a new tort and punishes a
wide range of conduct, including the publication or broadcast of
material that is outrageous and causes severe emotional distress.
Courts have made it extremely difficult for plaintiffs to win

such suits by placing a substantial burden of proof on the
injured party.”
-Kendra
Pember, D. R., & Calvert, C. (2015). Mass media law. New
Bryan Nelson
WednesdayMar 14 at 3:59pm
Howard Cunningham Is Being Appointed to Office!
The case of Howard Cunningham surrounds Cunningham being
charged for sleeping with a 15-year-old minor, while on college
spring break in Daytona Beach, Florida 1968. Cunningham got
off with 1-year probation which he served in Tennessee where
we resided. Since the incident, Cunningham became a
successful businessman and recently has been up for
consideration to joining the President's Task Force on
Interactive Media Services. Once news broke out about
Cunningham's proposition, the woman who Cunningham had sex
in 1968, decided to share her side of the story where she states
Cunningham took advantage of her. Cunningham decided to sue
to the newspaper for publishing private facts.
I believe that Cunningham can't prove that the information
released was private facts because they were not. The case was
never sealed therefor, they are open to the public. As stated in
the post, "She got the file, she said, from the courthouse. While
theoretically, it had been open since it was filed, no one ever
looked at it because few people even knew it existed." The
woman got the case by doing what anyone could have done, and
she received the documents legally. I do not think Cunningham
would win the private facts case.
Cunningham is also suing the newspaper for intrusion, because
they took a photo of him while on his private property, even
though the photographer was on public property. This is not
clear yes or no in my opinion. I think that because Cunningham

is a public figure and the photographer was on public property
he technically has the right away. It would be if he was just
another celebrity being followed by paparazzi. I believe that he
also could not sue for this because the photographer wasn't on
Cunningham's property.
If Cunningham was not a public figure then I believe it could be
different, because he could sue because he felt threated and/or
set out a restraining order because he believed he was being
stalked. Unfortunately, Cunningham is a public figure and
sometimes has to deal with the issues that come with that.

Troy NealWednesdayMar 14 at 852pmManage Discussion EntryJRN41.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Troy NealWednesdayMar 14 at 852pmManage Discussion EntryJRN41.docx

Similar to Troy NealWednesdayMar 14 at 852pmManage Discussion EntryJRN41.docx (7)

More from turveycharlyn

More from turveycharlyn (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Troy NealWednesdayMar 14 at 852pmManage Discussion EntryJRN41.docx