Originally published on May 12, 2008 on Ynet in Hebrew.
Tomorrow (Tuesday, May 12), the Knesset’s Science and Technology Committee is scheduled to discuss legislation proposed by MK Israel Hasson. Nicknamed the “Talkback Law,” the bill would require popular websites drawing over 50,000 unique visitors daily to be legally responsible for the content of the reader talkback they post.
According to the wording of the bill, talkback and all other responses whose content is libelous or violates privacy could expose website owners to monetary claims and even criminal charges. The committee is also scheduled to discuss a commercial electronics bill that deals in part with website talkback.
The bill stipulates that every owner of a popular website that allows for visitor talkback would be required to review this content and delete every comment that could result in a monetary claim or criminal charge. Given the enormous number of visitor responses and the frenetic pace of online discussions, the task would be impossible to accomplish.
Libel suits undergo months, even years, of court deliberations, and the decisions handed down in the end reflect varied and conflicting stances. It is certainly not possible to determine whether each comment in the flood of online responses is true or false, or to predict how the courts will treat borderline-libelous remarks. The inevitable result of the legislation, if passed, is that website owners will be forced to eliminate visitor participation. Popular forums will shut down, and talkbacks will disappear from the websites with the largest readership-the places where comments draw the greatest attention.
Even without examining whether “response editors” are truly capable of performing their jobs, there is something distorted about the demand to create such a position in the first place. The World Wide Web has characteristics and capabilities previously unknown in the mass media. First and foremost, it is a forum for decentralized, democratic discourse that does not require an editor. That is a very precious attribute for all those with a deep concern for freedom of expression.
That freedom, which was nearly an empty concept for most of us in the past, became real the moment that the decentralized web allowed each and every one of us to take part in public discourse-relatively free of the editorial considerations or censorship of the owners of large media outlets. And anyone still dubious about the value of free online discourse can learn about its great importance from the censorship mechanisms of totalitarian regimes, which dispose of readers’ comments, if not the readers themselves.
Indeed, the freedom of the web is occasionally exploited by users who attack, slander, and even spread lies. But the knowledge that the responses have not been edited or checked promotes a healthy sense of doubt about such content and thus greatly weakens its potential for causing damage.
The proposed legislation would place the Internet in a Procrustean bed, chopping off its limbs until it meets the dimensions of traditional forms of media. Blocking a channel for responses by the general public “neuters” the web and deprives each of us of a uniquely important forum for self-expression.
MK Hasson explains that his initiative is intended as a means of promoting a proper culture of discourse and raising the quality of responses posted by websites. These motives are dangerously arrogant and the bill a vain attempt to limit freedom of expression. The bill is not intended, and is not able, to teach the public civility or proper etiquette. If the legislators of the Knesset wish to influence the culture of public discourse, they should begin to do so in their own homes rather than corrupt the precious ideals of democracy.
