Electronic Miscommunication and the Defamatory Sense

Datos Bibliográficos

ID12121733
AutoresJacquelyn Burkell (0000-0003-2645-8127, Western University, autor de correspondencia), Ian R Kerr (University of Ottawa)
Año2000
Volumen15
Número1
Páginas81-110
Fecha de publicación2000-04-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaCanadian Journal of Law and Society / Revue Canadienne Droit et Société (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0829-3201 • E-ISSN: 1911-0227
EditorialCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0829320100006207
OpenAlexW2324369439
IdiomaEN
Referencias citadas41

This article examines the effect that cultural and technological changes have had on interpersonal communication and aims to provide an interdisciplinary explanation for the recent proliferation of defamation in electronic media. The authors argue that the absence of certain extra-linguistic cues and established cultural convention in the electronic environment often results in miscommunication which — if not itself defamatory — gives rise to emotional exchanges between interlocutors in a manner that provokes defamation. The authors begin their analysis with a discussion of defamation law as a recipient-oriented tort, demonstrating the importance of the context of communication in the determination of whether a particular remark carries a defamatory sense. In order to better understand how an online communication is received and understood by its recipients, the authors then investigate three differences between electronic and other media of communications: i) that the technology-mediated and text-bases character of electronic communication makes the process of communication more difficult and the incidence of miscommunication more likely; ii) that the nature of social interaction in the online setting has a tendency to increase hostile communications that might be considered defamatory; iii) that the cultural context and standards of communication that develop in online communities will reduce the significance of these hostile communications. Applying these considerations to the law of defamation, the authors conclude by rejecting the naive point of view that a libel published through the Internet ought to be dealt with in exactly the same way that a libel published in a newspaper is dealt with. The authors end by calling for further empirical research about the content that is produced as a consequence of contextual challenges in electronic communication

Context (archaeology · Convention · Electronic communication · Electronic media · Internet privacy · Interpersonal communication · Liability · Media studies · Newspaper · Political science · Sociology · The Internet · Tort · World Wide Web · Computer Science · Freedom of Expression and Defamation · Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection · History · Law · Psychology · Social Psychology · Stalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment