The legal implications of student use of social networking sites in the UK and US: current concerns and lessons for the future

Abstract

This paper provides a comparative snapshot of the current state of the law in the US and UK with respect to potential liability of university and college students for use (and misuse) of social networking sites. It reviews the limited case law on this topic, highlights the differences in the two nations’ laws of defamation and the various possible legal claims available to individuals allegedly harmed by postings on these social networking sites, and concludes that neither country currently offers a satisfactory legal or quasi-legal model for resolving these disputes.

Keywords:

• social networking
• university students
• college students
• defamation
• cyberbullying

Notes

1. An earlier version of this article was presented as a paper at the Oxford Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies UK/US Higher Education Law Round Table, 29 June–1 July 2009. We are grateful to the participants at that event for their insightful and helpful comments.

2. Steinhauer, Jennifer. 2008. Verdict in MySpace case. New York Times, November 27, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/27/us/27myspace.html. Zettner, Kim. Judge acquits Lori Drew in cyberbullying case, overrules jury, http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/drew_court/. The judge ruled that application of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to the allegations against Ms Drew was unconstitutional because the language of the law was too vague to provide notice of the type of conduct that could result in a violation.

3. See, for example, Wiliams, Kara D. 2008. Comment and case note: Public Schools v. MySpace and Facebook: The newest challenge to student speech rights. University of Cincinnati Law Review. 76: 707.

4. See discussion under Empowerment without responsibility? of this paper.

5. It is not within the scope of this article to consider the desirability of such developments in terms of, for example, ideas regarding the particular benefits of traditional face-to-face education. However, if technology offers the opportunities for virtual learning it is likely that government and some educational providers will seize the opportunity this offers to seek to reduce costs and/or widen participation.

6. MySpace, http://www.myspace.com; Facebook, http://www.Facebook.com. For further discussion in the context of UK higher education, see Committee of Inquiry into the Changing Learner Experiences. 2009. Higher education in a Web 2.0 world.

7. See, for example, Hanman, N. 2006. Face value. The Guardian, August 1 (online edition). Committee of Inquiry into the Changing Learner Experiences. 2009. Higher education in a Web 2.0 world, 22.

8. eROI Inc., cited in Megna, Michelle. 2009. Online marketing: Tapping teens, tweens, twenty-somethings. http://www.ecommerce-guide.com/resources/market_research/article.php/3801241.

9. Hurst, A. 2007. Is the writing on the wall for Facebook? The Guardian, July 2 (online edition).

10. A recent high profile example from the UK of this type of incident involved the new head of Britain's MI6 intelligence agency, John Sawyers. Inadequate security settings on his wife's Facebook profile allowed potentially sensitive family details to be viewed widely within the Facebook world. See, for example, 2009. MI6 chief's details posted on Facebook. The Times, July 5 (online edition).

11. See Committee of Inquiry into the Changing Learner Experiences. 2009. Higher education in a Web 2.0 world, 9.

12. There is no single agreed definition of Web 2.0, but a simple description is that it ‘incorporates software which supports group interaction. See Committee of Inquiry into the Changing Learner Experiences. 2009. Higher education in a Web 2.0 world, 13–14.

13. See Committee of Inquiry into the Changing Learner Experiences. 2009. Higher education in a Web 2.0 world, 13–14.

14. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union 521 US 844, 870 (1997).

15. Grossman, L. 2006. Time's person of the year: you. Time, December 13 (online edition). A recent example of the power which can be offered by the speed and relative pervasiveness of Web 2.0 technologies is provided by the June 2009 disputed election in Iran. One of the first reported steps of the incumbent regime was to close down Facebook and other similar web communication spaces. Siddique, H. 2009. Iranian people turn digital smugglers in battle for information. The Guardian, June 14 (online edition).

16. Grossman, L. 2006. Time's person of the year: you. Time, December 13 (online edition).

17. See, for example, Hosty v. Carter, 412 F.3d 731 (7th Cir. 2005) (en banc). A university could lawfully review and potentially regulate the content of a university subsidized student newspaper if that newspaper was a non-public forum. The court relied on Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988), a case involving a high-school newspaper and the principal's right to suppress content that he believed was inappropriate.

18. 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

19. 496 F. Supp. 2d 587 (W.D. Pa. 2007).

20. 30 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (E.D. Mo. 1998). See also Mahaffey v. Aldrich, 236 F. Supp. 2d 779 (E.D. Mich. 2002).

21. 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72685 (M.D. Pa., Sept. 11, 2008).

22. 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72685 (M.D. Pa., Sept. 11, 2008) at 16–7.

23. 807 A. 2d 847 (Pa. 2002). See also Barnett v. Tipton Co. Board of Education, 601 F. Supp. 2d 980 (W.D. Tenn. 2009). The court awarded summary judgement to the school district on a suspended students’ claims of First Amendment and due process violations as well as defamation. The websites were not parodies, according to the court, so were not protected, and the pre-suspension hearing before the school board complied fully with due process requirements. The court found no evidence to support the students’ claim that they were defamed.

24. 885 N.E.2d 1223 (Ind. 2008).

25. For further discussion of the rights of school students when disciplined for their social network postings see Williams, Kara D. 2008. Comment and case note: Public Schools vs. MySpace and Facebook: The newest challenge to student speech rights. University of Cincinnati Law Review. 76: 707. O'Connor, Michael J. 2009. Comment: School speech in the Internet age: Do students shed their rights when they pick up a mouse? University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. 11: 459.

26. Draker v. Schreiber, 271 S.W.3d 318 (Ct. App. Tex. 2008).

27. Draker v. Schreiber, 271 S.W.3d 318 (Ct. App. Tex. 2008) at 321.

28. Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003). For a discussion of the ‘true threats’ doctrine and its application to campus hate speech codes or other rules and regulations see Kaplin, W.A. and B.A. Lee. 2006. The law of higher education, 4th ed., section 9.6.2.

29. 91 Cal. Rptr. 3d 161 (Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. 2009).

30. Calif. Educ. Code section 66301.

31. 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97943 (E.D. Pa. 12/3/08).

32. In a case with some similarities to Snyder, Spanierman v. Hughes et al., 576 F. Supp. 2d 292 (D. Conn. 2008), a school district decided not to renew the contract of a non-tenured teacher because he used several MySpace profiles to communicate with his high-school students. The MySpace page contained pictures of the teacher, of naked men and of some of his students. School officials asked him to remove it, but he created another similar page under a different name. The court rejected his First Amendment and equal protection claims, saying that the material on his website was not a matter of public concern and he had no property right in a contract renewal, which defeated his equal protection claim. According to a Washington Post article, the problem of young teachers using social networking sites to express their ‘individuality’ has raised the concerns of educators across the USA. See Shapira, Ian. 2008. When young teachers go wild on the web: Public profiles raise questions of propriety and privacy. Washington Post, April 28, p. A-1.

33. 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51092 (E. D. Va. June 5, 2009).

34. 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51092 (E. D. Va. June 5, 2009) at 10.

35. Nina Yoder v. University of Louisville, U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D. Ky, filed March 12, 2009. A link to the complaint is available at http://chronicle.com/news/article/6121/nursing-student-sues-after-u-of-louisvile-expels-her-for-online-posts-about-patients.

36. Nina Yoder v. University of Louisville.

37. Beja, Marc. 2009. Judge orders U. of Louisville nursing student reinstated. Chronicle of Higher Education, August 3, http://chronicle.com/article/Judge-Orders-U-of-Louisville/47925/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en.

38. According to the US Supreme Court, words that depict an individual as the object of humour are considered to be opinion and thus are protected from defamation liability. See Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1986). The court also ruled that a communication that is not ‘reasonably believable’ and is obviously exaggerated to enhance the humour or contribute to the parody is not actionable (p. 57).

39. See the discussion of the Draker case above.

40. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

41. Milkovich v. Lorain J. Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990). See Lewis, John Bruce, and Gregory V. Mersol. 2002. Opinion and rhetorical hyperbole in workplace defamation actions: The continuing quest for meaningful standards. DePaul L. Rev. 52: 19.

42. New ‘background’ check, 23 no. 21 EMP. ALERT (National Employment Law Institute), Oct. 12, 2006, at 11, cited in Brandenburg, Carly. 2008. Note: The newest way to screen job applicants: A social networker's nightmare. Fed. Comm. L. J. 60: 597.

43. Sprague, Robert. 2008. Emerging technology and employee privacy: Symposium: Rethinking information privacy in an age of online transparency. Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal. 25: 395. See also Abril, Patricia Sanchez. 2007. Recasting privacy torts in a spaceless world. Harvard Journal Law and Technology. 21: 1.

44. Jaschik, Scott. 2009. To friend or to reject. Inside Higher Ed, April 29, insidehighered.com/lnew/2009/04/29/nacac.

45. The obvious recent example of this is the government introduction of the National Student Survey(NSS) in 2005.

46. McPartland, C. 2009. Manchester Uni backs down on reduced contact hours. Lawyer 2B, May 5 (online edition).

47. Bray, J. 2006. Facebook face off. The Guardian, November 7 (online edition).

48. Binns, A. 2007. Staff suffer bullying by students on the web. Times Higher Education Supplement, March 2 (online edition).

49. Bazalgette, P. 2007. Your honour, it's about those Facebook photos of you at 20 …. The Observer, May 20 (online edition).

50. See, for example, Bray, J. 2006. Facebook face off. The Guardian, November 7 (online edition).

51. Whilst it pre-dates Web 2.0 developments, research from the mid to late 1990s reveals growing levels of complaint about Internet-based defamation arising from Internet use in universities. Vick, D.W., L. Macpherson, and S. Cooper. 1999. Universities, defamation and the Internet. MLR, 62: 58–78.

52. An example of this in the UK might be the rise in popularity of Friends Reunited (www.friendsreunited.co.uk) in the late 1990s and early 2000s as a means of bringing old school and college friends back into contact. Whilst this site still exists and is still used, it appears to have been overshadowed by newer sites such as Facebook, which replicate and improve upon some of the latter's functionality. No fixed date could easily be identified when Friends Reunited was eclipsed by newer sites and so any researcher focusing upon Friends Reunited in the early mid 2000s could easily have found themselves left behind by a rapid shift in popular focus.

53. See www.atl.org.uk. Lipsett, A. 2009. Cyberbullying ‘affects 1 in 10 teachers’. The Guardian, April 4 (online edition).

54. Tahir, T. 2008. Confrontational stakes raise the stakes in online abuse. Times Higher Education Supplement, January 17 (online edition).

55. Whilst it is beyond the scope of this article, such searching reveals numerous examples of what might reasonably be described as bullying, harassing or other intimidatory behaviour directed at a variety of targets.

56. In contrast, consider the report from 2005 of two law firms considering a defamation action against former clients making alleged defamatory statements about the firm on ‘parody’ or other accusatory websites. 2005. Concern mounts as firm targeted by ‘parody’ Web site. The Law Gazette, February 24 (online edition). http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/concern-mounts-firm-targeted-amp145parodyamp146-web-site.

57. Tahir, T. 2008. Confrontational stakes raise the stakes in online abuse. Times Higher Education Supplement, January 17 (online edition).

58. Buckley, D. 2008. Infamy, infamy … they had it in for me. The Guardian, April 1 (online edition).

59. Nominally at least, a law of criminal libel continues to exist. This is different from the tort in a number of ways and is beyond the scope of this article. For further discussion, see Dugdale, Anthony, Michael Jones and Mark Simpson, eds. 2005. Clerk and Lindsell on torts, 19th ed., para. 23–12 (online edition). London: Sweet & Maxwell.

60. Johnson, D., and D. Post. 1997. And how shall the net be governed? A meditation on the relative virtues of decentralized, emergent law. In Coordinating the Internet, ed. B. Kahin and J. Keller. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cited by Basu, S., and R. Jones. 2007. Regulating cyberstalking. Journal of Information, Law and Technology, November 22: 8.

61. News reports from other jurisdictions indicate that, potentially, shopping in this way could be very lucrative. See, for example, Ostrovsky, D. 2006. Jury awards woman $11.3M in Internet defamation suit. Daily Business Review, October 6. The highest reported award of damages to date in the UK for Internet defamation is £100,000, see Gentoo Group Ltd and Peter Walls v Hanratty [2008] EWHC 2328 (QB) and also discussion by Kiss, J. 2008. Record online libel damages awarded. The Guardian, April 3 (online edition). However, courts will not always be easily persuaded to accept jurisdiction merely because a defamatory statement has been published on the web. See, for example, the 2002 Irish High Court decision in USA Rugby Football Union Limited v Ivan Calhoun (cited at www.venables.co.uk).

62. [2002] HCA 56.

63. Gutnick is considered to be of particular importance as it was the first decision of a final appellate court in relation to the question of jurisdiction with regard to online publication, although early fears that if adopted more widely it could have a devastating approach on the development and use of the Internet have so far proved unfounded. See, for example, discussion by Saadat, M. 2005. Jurisdiction and the Internet after Gutnick and Yahoo! JILT, 1.

64. [2003] WASC 153.

65. [2001] E.M.L.R. 28.

66. [2003] EWHC 1162 (QB).

67. See the Faulks Committee. 1975. Report of the Committee on Defamation, Cmnd 5909, para. 19.

68. Collins, M. 2005. The law of defamation and the Internet. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

69. Ludbrook, T. 2004. Defamation and the Internet: where are we now and where are we going? Part 1: Where are we now? Ent. L.R. 15, no. 6: 173–81.

70. See, for example, Keith-Smith v Williams [2006] All ER (D) 297 (Mar).

71. Duke of Brunswick v Harmer [1849] 14 QB 154.

72. Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1805, [2002] QB 783; Godfrey v Demon Internet Limited [2001] QB 201.

73. See Limitation Act 1980 section 4A.

74. See, for example, King v Daily Telegraph [2004] EWCA Civ 613; Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (Costs) [2005] UKHL 61. For consideration of possible future developments in this area see Ministry of Justice. 2009. Controlling costs in defamation proceedings. Whether firms would be willing to act on this basis when defendants are individuals rather than, say, wealthy media organisations is open to question, but the legal potential for this to happen is at least now available.

75. See, for example, Milmo, P., and W.V.H. Rogers, eds. 2008. Gatley on libel and slander, 11th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell. For a broader discussion and comparative analysis relating to freedom of speech see, for example, Barendt, E. 2005. Freedom of speech, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

76. Parmiter v Coupland (1840) 151 ER 340, 341–2.

77. Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237, 1240. For a review of further cases see Berkoff v Burchill [1996] 4 All ER 1008, CA.

78. [1970] 1 All ER 1094, cited by Neill, L.J. in Berkoff v Burchill [1996] 4 All ER 1008, CA.

79. [2001] QB 201. See also Loutchensky v Times Newspapers [2001] EWCA Civ 536; [2002] Q.B. 321.

80. For an example in the context of pre-Internet media, see Bryne v. Deane [1937] 1 K.B. 818.

81. Section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 provides a defence to parties who are not the author, editor or publisher, who did not know and had no reason to believe that they were involved in the publication of defamatory material. In Godfrey v Demon Internet [2001] QB 201 the defendant ISP failed in its attempt to rely upon section 1 because it had been put on notice about the alleged defamatory statement when the claimant had complained to the managing director of the defendant ISP but the ISP had failed to remove the material for almost two weeks. The decision in Godfrey, as well as the wider interpretation of section 1 of the 1996 Act, is likely to be of far less value to a webspace proprietor, such as the proprietor of an Internet forum. For further discussion see Ludbrook, T. 2004. Defamation and the Internet: Where are we now and where are we going? Part 1: Where are we now? Ent. L.R. 15, no. 6: 173–81.

82. See, for example, Bunt v Tilley [2006] EWHC 407 (QB), [2007] 1 WLR 1243, in which actions against three ISPs were struck out as having no realistic prospect of success, following their reliance on section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996. It was also held that if an ISP does no more than passively facilitate postings then it won't be a publisher at common law. It was also considered that two of the ISPs could rely upon the ‘mere conduit’ provision of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations whilst the third could rely on the hosting provision.

83. Section 1(3)(e).

84. SI 2002 No. 2013. The EC Directive's aim was to provide EC wide consistency with regard to the flow of electronic communications by inter alia limiting the scope of liability for the dissemination of defamatory material.

85. Regulation 17. ‘Mere conduits’ do not initiate the transmission; do not select the receiver of the transmission; and do not modify the content of the transmission.

86. Regulation 18. A means to improve speed and efficiency, caching involves the temporary storage of content of a transmission en route to its destination.

87. Regulation 19. Hosting involves the long-term storage of content. In Bunt v Tilley [2006] EWHC 407 (QB); [2007] 1 WLR 1243 the court concluded that the ISPs were protected by both Regulation 17 and section 1 of the Defamation Act 2006. In May 2002 the Law Commission published a scoping study which addressed perceived abuses of defamation procedure (Law Commission. 2002. Aspects of defamation procedure – a scoping study). One area of concern was the potential tactical targeting of ISPs who, once put on notice of potentially defamatory material, found themselves having to act as judge and jury when deciding whether to remove the material. Generally speaking, an ISP takes a significant legal risk if it declines to remove an entry but no particular risk if it removes it. Most ISPs are therefore likely to play safe and to remove entries when requested to do so. Concerned that defensive responses of many ISPs might stifle free speech and even encroach upon Human Rights Act freedoms, the Law Commission recommended that further consideration be given to the legal position of ISPs.

88. 25 March 1994, Supreme Court of Western Australia.

89. Clerk and Lindsell on torts, 19th ed., para. 23-12.

90. [2006] All ER (D) 297 (Mar).

91. [2008] EWHC 1781 (QB).

92. In accepting this to be the position, the court summarized the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Skuse v Granada Television Ltd [1996] EMLR 278 and Gillick v Brook Advisory Centres [2001] EWCA Civ 1263 and so applied the natural and ordinary meaning to the words used, as would have been conveyed to an ordinary reasonable reader reading them once. The ordinary reasonable reader being someone ‘who is neither naïve nor unduly suspicious, capable of reading between the lines and engaging in some loose thinking, but not avid for scandal … .’ Over elaborate analysis of the words is therefore to be avoided.

93. The discretionary power established in Norwich Pharmacal Co. v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1974] AC 133 allows a court to order disclosure of a wrongdoer's identity from those unknowingly involved in the wrongdoer's activities. From the perspective of an ISP, they face the risk that if user information is not provided promptly when an appropriate request is made there may be costs implications if a court order has to be sought. See, for example, Totalise plc v Motley Fool Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1897.

94. See cases such as McKennitt v Ash [2005] EWHC 3003 (QB) and Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457.

95. See, for example, research being undertaken by the Research Information Network considering the use of Web 2.0 technologies by university researchers (www.rin.ac.uk).

96. Vick, D.W., L. Macpherson, and S. Cooper. 1999. Universities, defamation and the Internet. MLR 62, 58–78. At the time their research was undertaken Vick et al. found that 35% of those universities which responded to their questionnaire had no formal procedures in place.

97. R (on the application of Bangert) v South Bank University [2003] EWHC 506 (Admin); [2003] All ER (D) 318 (Apr) provides a rare example of a published report of a student (in this case a doctoral student) being subject to an internal disciplinary action for inter alia allegedly misusing and making unauthorized use of the university's computers and networks, allegedly publishing a piece which was potentially offensive, and allegedly publishing a piece ‘that was potentially detrimental to the University's relationship with the community’. The absence of evidence does not necessarily mean an absence of cases, as university disciplinary procedures tend to be very localised with little likelihood that decisions will readily find their way into the public domain. Many universities will have prohibitions in their student disciplinary procedures against harassment, bringing the university into disrepute and other similar behaviour. One of the few reported examples is that of Oxford University having used evidence from Facebook profiles to discipline students. Gosden, E. 2007. Students’ trial by Facebook. The Guardian, July 17 (online edition).

98. There is no single agreed definition of Web 2.0, but a simple description is that it ‘incorporates software which supports group interaction. See Committee of Inquiry into the Changing Learner Experiences. 2009. Higher education in a Web 2.0 world, 13–4.

99. There is some evidence that students are selective about the technologies they embrace – for example, making ready use of social networking sites such as Facebook but being more resistant to formal university provided e-learning sites. There are also suggestions that students may be hostile to attempts by universities to encroach upon their (the students’) space by adopting Facebook and similar sites for more official purposes. See, for example, Universities’ Joint Information Systems Committee. 2007. Student expectations study, Briefing Paper.

100. See, for example, Committee of Inquiry into Changing Learner Experiences. 2009. Higher education in a Web 2.0 world, 31.

101. The same issues have been encountered by other businesses, for example law firms, who have adopted the use of blogging sites as marketing tools but then have to face the prospect that outsiders adding blogs may include defamatory material. See, for example, J.L. Goldsmith. 2005. Defamation fears as blogs bring in clients. The Law Gazette, November 10 (online edition).

102. Ludbrook, T. 2004. Defamation and the Internet: Where are we now and where are we going? Part 2: Where are we going? Ent. L.R. 15, no. 7: 203–11.

103. Hasan, A., and H.A. Deveci. 2005. Usenet defamation: FE/HE liability. Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 11, no. 5: 137–43.

104. Hasan, A., and H.A. Deveci. 2005. Usenet defamation: FE/HE liability. Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 11, no. 5: 137–43.

105. See Ludbrook, T. 2004. Defamation and the Internet: Where are we now and where are we going? Part 1: Where are we now? Ent. L.R. 15, no. 6: 173–81. The use of the word ‘only’ in key aspects of this section are likely to be problematical to a proprietor. It has also been argued that universities may be in a weaker position in attempting to argue that they have ‘no effective control’, for the purposes of the 1996 Act, over the creator of a defamatory statement. In the absence of specific guidance in the Act a court may conclude that a university has greater control than a typical ISP, as it has greater capacity to take steps such as instituting a training programme and imposing disciplinary sanction on students who abuse their computer privileges. Vick, D.W., L. Macpherson, and S. Cooper. 1999. Universities, defamation and the Internet. MLR 62: 58–78.

106. Vick, D.W., L. Macpherson, and S. Cooper. 1999. Universities, defamation and the Internet. MLR 62: 58–78. Twenty-eight per cent of universities surveyed in this study actually had policies which forbade random monitoring.

107. At the time of writing and in the face of significant national economic problems the specialist higher education and, to a lesser extent, general press has been reporting various threats to jobs in universities. See, for example, Newman, M. 2009. Institutions think the unthinkable and model 20% budget reductions. Times Higher Education Supplement, July 23 (online edition).

108. For a detailed discussion of some of the wider behavioural implications of the 1988 Act see, for example, Dnes, A.W., and J.S. Seaton. 1998. The reform of academic tenure in the United Kingdom. International Review of Law and Economics 18: 491–509. We are also grateful for more recent insights into issues of academic freedom featured in a paper presented by Professor Eric Barendt at the Oxford Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies UK/US Higher Education Law Round Table, 29 June–1 July 2009.

109. In accordance with the normal principle in Anglo-Welsh civil law that the loser in an action is required to pay not only his or her own legal costs but also those of the winning party. An extreme example of the possible affects of this is illustrated by the case of Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers (Costs) [2005] UKHL 61 in which the damages awarded to the claimant were under £4000 but the total legal bill faced by the defendant exceeded £1,000,000. For further discussion, see Ryan, D. 2006. Conditional fee agreements: Strutting their stuff around a circle that cannot be squared? Civil Justice Quarterly 25, no. 1.

110. Waelde, C., and L. Edwards. 1996. Defamation and the Internet: A case study of anomalies and difficulties in the information age. International Review of Law Computers and Technology 10: 284. It has been observed that, at least during the earlier years of Internet proliferation within universities, attempts to educate students about defamation actually increased rather than decreased complaints. It has been suggested that the effect of the education was to increase students’ awareness of their own reputation and legal rights but lacked the imposition of similar levels of responsibility regarding the defaming of others. Vick, D.W., L. Macpherson, and S. Cooper. 1999. 1999. Universities, defamation and the Internet. MLR 62: 58–78. At a higher level of generality, it is also recognised that any correlation between legal knowledge and choices about risk taking is not a simple one. See, for example, Cane, P. 2000. Consequences in judicial reasoning. In Oxford essays in jurisprudence: Fourth series, ed. J. Horder, 41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

111. Reports of the success of this approach from the music industry have been mixed, although cases continue to be brought and publicity obtained as a result. For a recent example from the USA, see Jury awards $675K in music sharing case, AOL news, August 2, 2009.

112. Section 32.

113. This legislation can give rise to both civil and criminal liability.

114. [2004] UKHL 13; [2004] 1 WLR 1089.

115. For further discussion of the UCU's views see, for example, Russell, S. 2009. The invisible hand of bullying. UC Magazine May: 26–7. For an actual example of UCU concerns see Newman, M. 2009. Academics ‘distressed’ by anonymous student feedback, Times Higher Education Supplement, May 29 (online edition).

116. Saadat, M. 2005. Jurisdiction and the Internet after Gutnick and Yahoo! JILT 2005, no. 1.

117. Goldsmith, J.L. 1998. Against cyberanarchy. Chicago Law Review 65: 1239.

118. Post, D. 2002. Against ‘Against cyberanarchy’. Berkley Technology Law Journal 17: 1371.

119. Basu, S., and R. Jones. 2007. Regulating cyberstalking. Journal of Information, Law and Technology, November 22: 3.

120. Anil, S. 2001. Cyberspace and the law of defamation: Developing a workable model. Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 7, no. 7: 175–83.

121. Reid, E. 1995. Virtual worlds: Culture and imagination. In Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and community, ed. G. Jones, 164–83. London: Sage.

122. Basu, S., and R. Jones. 2007. Regulating cyberstalking. Journal of Information, Law and Technology, November 22: 3, citing Lessig, L. 1999. Code and other laws of cyberspace. London: Routledge.

123. Anil, S. 2001. Cyberspace and the law of defamation: Developing a workable model. Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 7, no. 7: 175–83.

124. For further discussion and background analysis of this ‘disinhibition effect’ see, for example, Kiesler, S., J. Siegal, and T.W. McGuire. 1984. Social psychological aspects of computer mediated communication. American Psychologist 39: 1123–34.

125. [2004] UKHL 22; [2004] 2 AC 457.

126. For further discussion see, for example, Williams, Z. 2008. Whose privacy is it anyway? In UK confidential, ed. C. Edwards and C. Fieschi, 50–1. London: Demos.

127. Karniel, Y. 2008. A new proposal for the definition of defamation in cyberspace. Communications Law 13, no. 2: 38–46.

128. [2008] EWHC 1797 (QB).

129. Para. 16.

130. Karniel, Y. 2008. A new proposal for the definition of defamation in cyberspace. Communications Law 13, no. 2: 38–46. Wilhelm, A.G.????. Democracy in the digital age. New York: Routledge.

131. Karniel, Y. 2008. A new proposal for the definition of defamation in cyberspace. Communications Law 13, no. 2: 38–46. The relationship between former President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky are cited as an example falling into this category.

132. Karniel, Y. 2008. A new proposal for the definition of defamation in cyberspace. Communications Law 13, no. 2: 38–46.

133. Williams, Z. 2008. Whose privacy is it anyway? In UK confidential, ed. C. Edwards and C. Fieschi, 46. London: Demos.

134. Karniel, Y. 2008. A new proposal for the definition of defamation in cyberspace. Communications Law 13, no. 2: 38–46.

135. Anil, S. 2001. Cyberspace and the law of defamation: Developing a workable model. Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 7, no. 7: 175–83. Johnson, David R. 1995. Traveling in cyberspace. Legal Times, April 3. See David, G. 1995. Post, anarchy, state, and the Internet: An essay on law-making in cyberspace. J. Online L. article 3: 10, http://www.cli.org/X0023_ANARCHY.html.

136. Anil, S. 2001. Cyberspace and the law of defamation: Developing a workable model. Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 7, no. 7: 175–83. Perritt, Henry H. Jr.????. Cyberspace self-government: Town hall democracy or rediscovered royalism? Berkeley Technology Law Journal 12, http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/12_2/Perritt/html/reader.html.

137. Anil, S. 2001. Cyberspace and the law of defamation: Developing a workable model. Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 7, no. 7: 175–83. Dunne, Robert L. 1994. Deterring unauthorized access to computers: Controlling behavior in cyberspace through a contract law paradigm. Jurimetrics J. 35, no. 1: 12.