Cybersex. -- The willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor or consideration.

Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 4(c)(1) of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of at least Two hundred thousand pesos (PhP200,000.00) but not exceeding One million pesos (PhPl,000,000.00) or both.

Since the UK government claims that the current threat level from terrorism is "substantial", you can't help feeling that one way of tackling that would be to free up the police from having to worry about posters in a pensioner's window.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

High school junior Kelsey Upton was puzzled. Why was a stranger from Iowa sending her a text message?

Her confusion turned to terror last fall when she learned that the person who had sent the message had plucked her personal information from a pornographic website. Without her knowledge, someone had placed her name and phone number on the site next to a photo of a naked woman, in an explicit position, who somewhat resembled her.

Her father, a federal investigator who previously worked for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, traced the posting to a Citadel cadet, with the help of law enforcement officials. But to their dismay, Upton and her father learned that no crime was committed. Now Randy and Kelsey Upton, who live in Oxford, Ga., plan to meet with legislators and other public officials to try to make such actions a crime. "I want him arrested," said Kelsey Upton, now 17. "But if that won't happen, I want a law about this so someone doesn't just get a slap on the wrist."

"Such identification shall also include the electronic imposing of the facial image of a person onto an obscene depiction."

Sandals Resorts took issue with the "compare and contrast" tone of the email, which highlighted the top dollar lifestyle of its executives while making the point that the average Jamaican lived in far less luxury. Additionally, the email pointed out that all top paying jobs went to foreigners. At this point, Sandals Resorts decided to play the race card and sue Google for libel in NY, citing precedent:

Sandals alleged the e-mail was false and defamatory in claiming that the company was racist. It said that an accusation of racism was inherently a basis for a libel claim, relying on the Appellate Division case of Herlihy v. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 214 AD2d 250 (1995). In that case, a former MOMA employee claimed that she was falsely accused of making anti-Semitic remarks and then fired. The court ruled that the allegation of anti-Semitism was an example of "slander per se" and denied the museum summary judgment.

Their next move was to go after Google, rather than the end user who actually crafted the email, which would be par for the course. Google = $$$! asjft3092@gmail.com? Not so much. And then came the attempted land grab (internetically-speaking):

Sandals asked the court to order Google to turn over 'all information concerning the Google account de-signated asjft3092@gmail.com, including but not limited to all e-mail, instant messages, text messages, buddy lists, address books, contact lists, account histories, account settings, profiles, mail boxes, folder structure, detailed billing, user activity records (log on and log off times), user identification records, phone number access records, ISP access records, and all information provided by the user at the time the account was created."

Whoa. That's a lot of information. And all of this is needed to deal with one email that makes the suggestion that Sandals Resorts is benefitting unfairly from a combination of state subsidies and cheap local labor? Fortunately, the presiding Justice headed them off:

In March 2010, NY Supreme Court Justice Alice Schlesinger denied the petition, ruling that the e-mail "does not contain assertions of fact, nor would a reasonable person construe that it does."

Justice Schlesinger also noted that the e-mail's numerous links to outside sources invited readers to draw their own conclusions and suggest "that the account holder's words are meant to provoke either thought or discussion and are therefore protected speech.

Finally, the judge said the company offered no evidence that it was harmed by the e-mail.

Further smackdown was supplied by Justice Saxe:

"Considering the e-mail in question here as a whole, we find that it is an exercise in rhetoric, seeking to raise questions in the mind of the reader regarding the role of Jamaican nationals in the Sandals resorts located in Jamaica," Justice Saxe wrote for the court.

He noted that the e-mail was "replete with rhetorical questions, asked either in relation to a link to an article about Sandals' companies or executives or in relation to a link to a photograph from the resorts' on-line public relations materials. Its apparent purpose is not to characterize Sandals Resorts as racist. It is to call the reader's attention to the writer's belief that the native people of Jamaica, specifically the taxpayers, are providing financial support for the resorts on their island, but are not reaping commensurate financial rewards for that investment."

All of this would seem self-apparent, but I suppose if you're looking to, a) insulate yourself from criticism, and b) profit from the experience, all common sense goes out the window faster than your remaining reputation. The legal system worked as it should, protecting free speech and, more importantly, setting additional precendent for the open exchange of ideas on the internet:

The decision, written by Justice David B. Saxe, highlights the "freewheeling" nature of online communications, pointing out that readers generally give statements in private e-mails, blogs and other online media less credence than statements in traditional media, and are less likely to understand them as statements of fact. Courts, the judge wrote, must adjust their standards for libel accordingly.

If nothing else, we know for a fact that "traditional media" would certainly agree that the untamed internet deserves "less credence," but other than that, Saxe is dead on: online communication is nothing if not "freewheeling." And anyone who's waded in the comment threads here at Techdirt would certainly agree with this:

The opinion approvingly quotes law review articles that made the case that online communications "are often the repository of a wide range of casual, emotive, and imprecise speech..."

So, chalk up one for the little guy. To the flame wars! (Possibly already in progress.)

The one thing that still irks about the new bill, at least from an American perspective, is that it still places the burden of a truth defense on the defendant. It still seems unfair and inefficient to put the burden of proving a statement's truth on the defendant when the plaintiff presumably has much easier access to everything they need to disprove the claim. Perhaps, with the changes the bill makes to strengthen 'fair comment' and tighten jurisdiction, the backwardness of the truth defense will not be as much of an issue. But I still worry about situations where a limited-resource defendant faces a super-wealthy corporate plaintiff - why should the poor village blogger have to prove the truth of a statement that the rich City executive ought to be able to disprove with minimal effort?

The Kyiv Post, effective Dec. 14, 2010, is blocking access to all web traffic originating from the United Kingdom in protest of the draconian libel laws there that hinder legitimate free speech and threaten the work of independent journalists, authors, scientists and others worldwide. In a phenomenon known as "libel tourism," rich and powerful plaintiffs file lawsuits in London -- "the libel capital of the world" -- to exploit laws stacked in their favor, stifling journalism and threatening news organizations and others with costly lawsuits.

Second, what exactly has Brown done for her minority constituents during the 17 years she's been in Congress?

Too many African-Americans continue to live in poverty. Too many African-Americans are out of work. Too many African-American youth are the perpetrators or victims of violent crime. Too many African-American students lag behind in school or drop out.

Brown promotes herself as one who brings home the pork. Her campaign slogan proclaims "Corrine Delivers!"

Besides feathering her own nest while in Washington, just exactly what has Brown delivered for her minority constituents?

"If they would have just taken it down, this all would have been over," Deters said. "They just kind of mocked the whole court system."

The purpose of this provision is to ensure that libel tourists do not attempt to chill speech by suing a third-party interactive computer service, rather than the actual author of the offending statement.

In such circumstances, the service provider would likely take down the allegedly offending material rather than face a lawsuit. Providing immunity removes this unhealthy incentive to take down material under improper pressure.

As a result of the litigation, half the hits on the first page of a Google search for "Vision Media TV" now refer to the litigation and to the accusations against Vision Media.  The litigation taught many prospective customers about the anonymous charges made against Vision Media -- that Vision Media promotes its video production services by cold-calling non-profits and deceptively suggesting that it can get them free airtime on public television.  An experienced non-profit communications director, Jeff Cronin of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, detailed the various tricks Vision Media and associated enterprises had used to try to trick his group into buying its services.  

Vision Media's counsel made a ham-handed request for a gag order, complaining that public discussion of the lawsuit had become embarrassing and was threatening its relationship with Hugh Downs -- a name that Vision Media sales representatives used as entree to non-profit targets who recall Downs' former broadcast roles with respect.   And that attention led to a story on National Public Radio, embracing the anonymous accusations and reporting more detailed problems, as well as stories in the Chronicle of Philanthropy.  The Better Business Bureau withdrew its favorable rating; the rating has since been downgraded to C-, and a representative of Hugh Downs, who had been allowing Vision Media to play on his name and reputation, publicly announced plans to cut his ties with Vision Media.

When a company has been attacked online, and believes that it has hard evidence that the attacks are false, it faces hard choices about how to respond to those attacks.  What those companies don't need is the blandishments of lawyers who hope to make an easy buck by telling them that they can easily suppress criticism by suing the web sites where that criticism is hosted.  

As for non-profits, Vision Media has already tried to perpetuate its business by adopting the new name Great America HD.   Non-profits should be on the lookout for this same operation adopting new sheep's clothing.  At one point, Vision Media added the names of several staff members to the litigation.  That listing can be found here.   Non-profits who consider doing business with a TV production company employing any of these individuals -- be on your guard!

But now one of the trustees, Ken Olisa, has sought the immediate retraction of what he regards as libellous remarks made in calling for an EGM.

In an email to one of the critics, Olisa demanded "that you and the other 5 signatories withdraw the unwarranted slur on my good name, apologise forthwith (copying the recipients of your message) and undertake in the same correspondence not to repeat the libel".

The email added: "I take my reputation very seriously and will have no hesitation in pursuing you and your co-signatories in the Courts unless I receive an unequivocal apology."

But in fifteen years of experience, we've seen that CDA 230 is not required for a thriving Internet.  Europe does not have a statute equivalent to CDA 230, the U.K. has stricter libel laws than the United States, and Directive 2000/31/EC requires EU member nations to enforce libel laws online.  But some estimates suggest that Internet use is actually higher in the U.K. than the U.S.  The same goes for Japan (hosts may be liable if they have knowledge of libel, higher Internet use than the U.S.) and Canada (hosts immune only if "innocent dissemination" higher Internet use than U.S.).  Fast-growing nations like Brazil have experienced ten-fold increases in Internet use in the last decade, even without a local version of CDA 230.