The days of wine and roses for Internet assassins may be coming to an end. The unmarshalled wild, wild west of the blogosphere may soon have a new sheriff in town — accountability. Where the church has failed to be an influence of restraint and self-governance, not only on the nation as a whole, but with those who profess faith in Christ, the state is coming in — and with a vengeance. It appears that the courts are beginning to apply standard principles of defamation and libel to anyone who publishes defamatory material.

This morning, USA Today reports that “a Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a ‘crook,’ a ‘con artist,’ and a ‘fraud.’” According to reporter Laura Parker:

Legal analysts say the Sept. 19 award by a jury in Broward County, Fla. — first reported Friday by the Daily Business Review — represents the largest such judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. Lyrissa Lidsky, a University of Florida law professor who specializes in free-speech issues, calls the award “astonishing.”

“People Are Using the Internet to Destroy People They Don’t Like”

USA Today further reports:

“What’s interesting about this case is that (Scheff) was so vested in being vindicated, she was willing to pay court costs,” Lidsky says. “They knew before trial that the defendant couldn’t pay, so what’s the point in going to the jury?”

Scheff says she wanted to make a point to those who unfairly criticize others on the Internet. “I’m sure (Bock) doesn’t have $1 million, let alone $11 million, but the message is strong and clear,” Scheff says. “People are using the Internet to destroy people they don’t like, and you can’t do that.”

Read the article.

Free Speech, I Corinthians 6, Excommunicants, and More

Years ago, I was studying Constitutional Law under Judge Robert Bork. When we began to study the subject of free speech and defamation, I remember Judge Bork emphatically stating that the Framers only designed the First Amendment to protect political speech. His point was that there is no constitutional “free speech” right to say anything you want to say.

When it comes to speech, most bloggers (including some professing Christians) borrow more from the reasoning of the ACLU than the Holy Scriptures, the common law, or the Constitution. To these individuals, “free speech” means absolute freedom to say whatever they think or feel. Alternatively, they argue that (notwithstanding the fact that they are publishing to the entire world), they should not be held accountable by the same standards that others would be held to account. For these bloggers, the Internet is a place where men and women can be profane, vile, and defamatory; a place were historic rules of journalistic integrity or academic responsibility no longer apply — a place where you can say pretty much whatever you want to say because, hey, “I am only a blogger, I am not a professional.”

It appears as if this reasoning is being shattered.

Stay tuned to Cross-Examination as Vision Forum examines biblical ethics and the blogosphere. Future articles address the potential legal liability associated with blogs; the tragedy and impropriety of Christians suing Christians under 1 Corinthians 6; the violation of the heart of 1 Corinthians 6 by “Christian” bloggers who seek to prosecute fellow Christians before the world on the Internet; the non-applicability of 1 Corinthians 6 to excommunicants; and the proper and improper place of secular courts to prosecute unlawful behavior where professing Christians lack formal ecclesiastical accountability, and will not submit themselves to such. For additional discussion on when, if ever, is it appropriate for Christians to sue men who profess to be Christians, consider the CDs from the Witherspoon School of Law and Public Policy.