| | ||
| | |||
| Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, left, and President Bill Clinton have become the target of numerous Web parodies. | |||
| Clinton, Starr ridiculed on the Net | |||
| Parodies abound, raising the question: ‘Can they do that?’ | |||
| |||||
| Aug. 4 — |
|
‘These Web sites are what the Internet is all about — giving individuals a mechanism for free speech.’
— MICHAEL OVERLY Attorney |
ON ONE SITE, readers listed what they said was Starr’s home address, home phone number and both the work address and phone number of Starr’s wife, Alice. “Why don’t you write to them and tell them what you think of what Kenny is doing to the country, to free speech, to privacy rights, etc.?” said the message listing Starr’s home address on the Hillary Rodham Clinton Defense Forum site. The message was posted by a reader named Marv. An anonymous reader, posting Alice Starr’s work address and phone number, urged people to harass the couple. “Or better yet, hold an enormous rally with megaphones screaming ‘Starr Must Go!’ Rallies should also be held at the Court House in D.C. I’d love for 10,000 people to assemble and scream about the idiocy Starr is perpetrating. I don’t know what the law would say about holding rallies in Starr’s neighborhood, but I doubt that would be a possibility. Alas.” Another Web site has a new online game that invites you to give Starr “a good smack upside the head.” “He’s such a weasel,” lead game developer Aaron Heverin said in a news release, “you just want to give him a good thwack. ... It might not actually shut him up, but it’s good for the soul.” Tom Fazio, public relations coordinator for MJAC, the company that runs the Web site, said no one has complained — not even Starr’s office — and that feedback has been positive to what he called a “stress-release” exercise. “We checked with our attorneys about where we would be crossing the line so to speak, and a lighthearted game like this” met with their approval, Fazio said. “We do not want to incite violence, this is not the aim of the game.” Fazio said a legal disclaimer on the site states as much, but a search of the game’s Web pages showed the disclaimer was missing. Fazio promised to get it back up as soon as possible. Starr isn’t the only target of Web parodies stemming from his investigation into allegations that Clinton and Lewinsky had an affair and then tried to cover it up. The Yahoo! directory has entire subsections listing sites related to the Clintons and Monica Lewinsky. Some are supporters, others detractors and others offer a mixed bag of sarcasm. Some allow public comments, others put up doctored photos — in one case, a New York Post cover with Lewinsky on it that you can “warp” with your mouse. And it’s not just the Web: Usenet newsgroups contain plenty of parody and innuendo as well. But Web sites have become more visible. PUBLIC RECORDS OK Court rulings have upheld these antics on the Internet, as long as they don’t call for violence, haven’t been found by a court to be defamatory and don’t invade someone’s privacy. But lawyers note that there are a lot of shades of gray in the law. |
|||
|
A federal judge upheld a man’s right to post ‘offensive’ words, as well as the phone numbers and addresses of people with whom he had a grievance, on his Web site.
|
Publishing private facts such as telephone numbers could be considered OK because they are readily available. But publishing Social Security numbers may be a little different, said Michael Overly, a lawyer with the Los Angeles firm Foley & Lardner. But, he added, criticizing Starr and Clinton is engaging in political speech, which is protected by the Constitution. “These Web sites are what the Internet is all about — giving individuals a mechanism for free speech,” said Overly. “I think the courts looking at this would be very reticent to shut these sites down unless they were publishing private facts not available from another source, or they were making statements that are obviously false.” Indeed, last month a federal judge upheld a man’s right to post “offensive” words, as well as the phone numbers and addresses of people with whom he had a grievance, on his Web site. The site, which William Sheehan created as part of a dispute over credit reports, even included detailed maps on how to get to their homes. U.S. District Judge William Dwyer ruled in Seattle that people cannot be barred from putting offensive material on the Internet until and unless a court has found it defamatory at trial. He noted that Sheehan had not urged readers to take “lawless action” and that he had obtained the phone numbers, addresses and maps via public records. “Offensive speech — even if it ‘stirs people to anger’ —is ordinarily protected,” Dwyer wrote. The American Civil Liberties Union claimed the ruling helped extend free speech rights in cyberspace. “It recognizes that protest on a Web site is a high-tech version of handing out leaflets and carrying picket signs,” said staff attorney Aaron Caplan. Sheehan also has provided an explanatory note on his site: “The information provided here,” he writes, “is for the express purposes of using legal and peaceful means to force these persons and corporations into conducting their affairs with fairness, ethics and the same compassion they wish upon themselves.” Want to write back? E-mail either MSNBC Internet correspondent Miguel Llanos or Bobbi Nodell | |||