From the Belmont Club: Reflections on the Matter of Online Reputation

But the phenomenon of creating online “hate crime” registers is not confined to Britain. For example, UCLA’s website has a “Hate Crime and Hate Incident Reporting Form” with the ominous disclaimer, “ALL information submitted will be maintained as confidential to the extent permitted by law” (the italics are mine). If you run this Google search query, it will be evident that there are literally thousands of ways of report criminal activity online.

The police have solicited tips from the public since time immemorial. And it would probably be impossible to mount an effective defense against terrorist activity without enlisting community informants. But as anyone familiar with well-protected databases understands, records unless deleted are forever. Somewhere, someplace a record that Robin Page was arrested for “hate crime” exists. It’s part of his reputation. And as far as anyone with the smarts or legal authority to access his records is concerned, it is part of his online reputation. For now and all time to come, for better or worse, you are in part what other people think you are. Even legal action cannot wholly define an online reputation. The action itself becomes part of the reputation and the derogatory information may be repeated and spread even more by the very process of challenging it. Unless a way can be found …

Read it all.

I will consider posting comments on this article submitted first by email to Kendall’s E-mail: KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com.

print

Posted in * Culture-Watch, Blogging & the Internet, Law & Legal Issues

One comment on “From the Belmont Club: Reflections on the Matter of Online Reputation

  1. Kendall Harmon says:

    From Tom Rightmyer:

    We can’t really control what others think of us or say about us.
    St. Paul writes of his own trials at the hands of the enemies of Christ, and many can testify to the consequences that come from opposing evil in Christ’s name. In the cases cited of real injury sometimes approximate justice can be done, but in most situations all we can hope for is that the purveyor of malicious gossip will be recognized as such. A case in point is the malicious gossip about supposed gay Church of England bishops retailed by the Presiding Bishop to the BBC. Another is President Clinton’s lie about his sexual experience. These remain permanent stains on character.