I urge everyone to take a moment to read this piece on Daily Kos.  An excerpt:

If you maintain a blog or website, and you post blockquoted text, photos, and images from copyrighted sources such as newspaper websites, you could unknowingly find yourself served with a lawsuit by Righthaven or another firm like Righthaven. Here’s how Righthaven operates specifically:

They purchase the copyright to an article or image from the newspaper that they represent. Then they search the Internet for websites, blogs, and forums where those articles or images were posted without authorization. They find out the identity of the owner of the website or the identity of the blogger or forum member. Then they serve that individual or organization with a lawsuit for copyright infringement. Actually, there is another step that they do between steps two and three, but I will get to that later.

It’s common practice for us, as bloggers, to quote small excerpts of pieces for argument, elucidation and sometimes just plain amusement value.   This is, of course, entirely legal, but if a group such as Righthaven chooses to go after us, many of us don’t have the resources to hire an attorney or defend ourselves in court.  Common practice is for people to end up settling out of court to make the lawsuit go away.  Part of the problem with this is not the lawsuits, but the way it creates an atmosphere in which less information is shared because we are unwilling to risk it.

Similarly, there’s some concern about this:

Cosponsored by state Rep. Carolyn Partridge (D-Rockingham), the bill would expand Vermont’s “disturbing the peace” statute to include electronic communications that “knowingly and intentionally” cause “false and defamatory” postings to be made on a website. The crime would be punishable by a fine of up to $250 and up to three months in jail; on second offense, the fine and jail time increase to $500 and six months.

My concern with this, however, is not nearly as great as with the former case.  In the former case, someone is abusing the cost of the legal system to get people to cough up money to protect themselves.  In the latter, the problem is primarily that this bill doesn’t actually do anything new.  We’ve already got a law on the books about disturbing the peace that includes electronic communication:

§ 1027. Disturbing peace by use of telephone or other electronic communications

(a) A person who, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass or annoy, makes contact by means of a telephonic or other electronic communication with another and (i) makes any request, suggestion or proposal which is obscene, lewd, lascivious or indecent; (ii) threatens to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of any person; or (iii) disturbs, or attempts to disturb, by repeated anonymous telephone calls or other electronic communications, whether or not conversation ensues, the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the communication or communications are received shall be fined not more than $250.00 or be imprisoned not more than three months or both. If the defendant has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or of an offense under the laws of another state or of the United States which would have been an offense under this act if committed in this state, the defendant shall be fined not more than $500.00 or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.

All that Obie’s suggested change does is to clarify that “electronic communication” includes anonymous posts on web sites.

I agree that freedom of speech is critical, but there’s a big difference between freedom of speech and freedom to harass or intimidate people.  We’ve kicked people from Green Mountain Daily for attempting to invade the personal lives of group members, and with good reason.  Anonymous or not, posting about someone’s employer, posting about their family?  That’s all illegal under the law I’ve just posted, and should remain so.  That’s a far cry from posting things that piss people off, or responding in kind to posts that are made here in which both members are kind of going after one another (not that anything like that ever happens) in a personal way.

I want us to be vigilant about freedom of speech, but privacy and the right not to be harassed, slandered or libeled are important as well, and we can strike a good balance.  What Righthaven does clearly crosses that line.  What we, as bloggers, do, generally doesn’t, especially since our primary targets are public officials and people working with government.  Obie’s legislation, while redundant, doesn’t seem to change current legislation except by making clear that defamation is part of the statute and clarifying online communications.  I don’t actually see a problem with this.  

I, of course, welcome arguments to the contrary and look forward to seeing you guys tell me how wrong I am.