Wiser use of words

Opinion is life-affirming, pivotal. Some say it's healthy to have burning, well-versed views. Opinion can inform debate, resolve conflict, expose or head off environmental or social justice fiascos. And it is a human right to agree with or dispute an opinion.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

But there's a public frontier where receiving and imparting opinion cuts too close to the wind of cruelty, a hideout where freedom of opinion buffers the freedom to abuse after a lucrative arrangement has rendered the law's camera axis virtually impotent.

If you yearn for a bit of a biff, nameless face-off or gratuitous violence, the web can slake your thirst.

Extreme behaviour, or flaming and "trolling", has historically been tolerated inside the web's nihilistic foxhole where the razor-sharp barbs of networked anarchy party.

The F-word sashays past misspelt fury that scuttles political correctness while an unrestrained, aliased proletariat commits virtual assault in the name of opinion.

Shadowy, unidentified online warriors hurl abuse, engage in free-form unhealthy hating, bullying and rancour; destroy a reputation here, vilify someone there; paralyse the truth or misrepresent it - it doesn't seem to matter and it's done with an undercover mouse-click via email, forums, websites and community networks.

Online comment has inflicted harm upon children, adults and businesses, and it is now vital to clarify the difference between opinion and abuse.

So when does online opinion swap hats with abuse? And at what point does abuse morph into defamation?

Often, according to legal opinion.

Internet abuse and unlawful stalking are covered under Australian defamation law and the Criminal Code. A legal expert said there had been numerous Australian and overseas cases relating to internet defamation and that "from experience, it is quite a common complaint".

Flaming or "trolling" become defamation when they identify a person and say something about that person that would cause an ordinary, reasonable individual to think less of him/her or to shun or avoid them. For example, if it is suggested that a person is incompetent then that would usually be defamatory, the legal expert said.

"In many web forums comments suggesting certain people are stupid or ignorant could be defamatory. Of course it is often posted that people are abusive, violent, sexually deviant etc. and these types of suggestions would usually be highly defamatory."

But a person who published defamatory material could defend an action if he/she could establish defences such as truth, honest opinion or qualified privilege, he said. However, in practice, the more sensationalist the content, the more difficulty the person had in rationalising those defences.

Suing for defamation or unlawful stalking is costly but one option is to pursue a court order requesting a web host remove content if defamation is established.

Happily, some Australian websites that host popular discussion forums scrupulously monitor and filter content while offering constructive, valuable user input.

The Raising Children Network forum is one and prescribes the following: "Be respectful. You may have strong feelings about a topic, and you may encounter different or challenging ideas, but show respect to all users of these forums and avoid being rude, abusive or dismissive of others. This includes respect for race, religion, political views and other beliefs and experiences. It is illegal to make racist, sexist or homophobic comments, harass or 'stalk' any person, or make defamatory statements or personal attacks on another person."

But other web hosts simply say "no trolling or flaming".

One of the hardest things in life is to formulate polite, well thought-out, contrary opinions conveyed without malice to an individual, group or the public. And in reality the litmus test for online conduct should disembark in the real world. Would you say that to someone's face, to a colleague, acquaintance or loved one?

Whether individuals control the written word or not, the responsibility for celebrating opinion and culling flamers and "trolls" should dock abruptly at the website manager's feet.