Big Brother's user generated troubles
The weekend's Big Brother "sex scandal", during which the official site's live feed and forums were taken offline, highlights an issue that is provoking debate across the globe: to what extent are Web site administrators responsible for the conduct of their users?
Following the removal of two housemates due to an apparent incident of sexual misconduct, the official Big Brother site was inundated with visitors desperate to know what happened. Potentially defamatory speculation on the site's forums was not tolerated by administration, who posted this message:
"The BB forums were closed last night and remain closed today as some users ignored appeals not to discuss issues surrounding Ashley and John's exit from the House. While we understand that most forum users did the right thing, some persisted in discussion and speculation of these matters so there was no other option but to temporarily close the forums."
Network Ten and Endemol Southern Star are certainly wise to be taking such precautions in the wake of calls for the controversial show to be axed, but are they legally obligated to do so?
The role of a Web site owner in the censorship or regulation of user generated content is a topic of much debate. While common sense would suggest that the owner of a building should not be held liable for the conduct of those inside it, all bets are off in the intangible realm of the Internet.
Probably the most publicised concern of late has been the danger of exposing children to sexual predators online. Social networking behemoth MySpace recently introduced new policies aimed at preventing children under 16 from being contacted by unknown adults. Any users who want to be on the friends' list of 14- and 15-year-olds must know the person's full name or e-mail address. Those 13 and under are prohibited from joining MySpace at all.
There's just one problem with these new measures: the sole method of verifying age is to ask new members "Are you over 13?" Anyone who has ever lied about how old they are to get into a movie will know how willingly kids embellish their age.
In Australia, measures have also been taken to curb objectionable or dangerous content on social sites. Ninemsn last year shut down four chat groups in which users had been discussing rape and self-mutilation, and sharing sexually explicit images.
The other big area of concern is piracy and copyright infringement. Although a site may be accessed from anywhere in the world, legal issues such as defamation and copyright infringement can be circumvented via an appeal to the laws of the host country. For example, controversial site allofmp3.com offers music files charged by size and not subject to DRM (Digital Rights Management), allowing unrestricted copying and transferring of songs. The site has answered vehement claims of illegality with a statement that it operates in Russia, and complies with all relevant Russian legislation. Essentially, their argument is that they are subject only to Russian law, and if international customers choose to download songs from them, well, it's not their problem.
Should Web site owners be responsible for the user-created content that appears on their pages? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this contentious issue.