The Internet and the First Amendment
The Internet is unlike other media in that it provides a potential forum for open and far-reaching communication. In the interest of freedom of speech, it is generally agreed that this potential of the medium should be protected and developed. As such, this becomes a consideration in determining defamation law for the Internet.
It is clear that harsher restrictions on communication than exist under traditional law, such as the aforementioned efforts to discourage anonymity, counter this objective. Were these restrictions useful for other purposes, the conflict between these purposes and the First Amendment might be worth considering. However, no such purpose has shown itself beyond the general interest of protecting individuals from undue defamation, an interest which has already been held against and reconciled with First Amendment concerns in traditional libel law.
Some have argued that the Internet's potential as a forum for open communication ought to make it less subject than other media to any restrictions whatsoever. However, we disagree with this argument also. As previously stated, the value conflict between protecting free speech and protecting individuals has already been sorted out in other media, and it has been determined that in general, the latter does hold some weight against the former; hence the defamation laws that have traditionally existed. Similarly, where the Internet is concerned, it can be presumed that the interest of protecting individuals against undue defamation would still hold some weight. Further, we feel that enforcement of defamation laws on the Internet can actually contribute to the Internet's usefulness as a forum for open dissemination of information. If no restrictions were made on false defamatory statements against public or private individuals, such statements would undoubtedly be much more common, and unwarranted attacks would be the norm. As such, statements which were accurate would have little credibility, and the Internet could not possibly be viewed as a reliable source of information. This would render it useless as a means of communication with the general public, and any value it might otherwise have in that respect would be lost.