Curator

As a reputation management pioneer, Nick has the inside scoop on all things Reputation Management. This blog will focus on Reputation, practices, technologies, providers and re-shared content from some of the preeminent players in the industry. We hope you enjoy!

Posts By: Curator

The Changing Legal Landscape Of Hate Speech & Content

In the legislative world, the Internet is still a newcomer. It’s challenging to figure out how laws intended to apply to real-world behavior should apply to online activity. For example, if a person threatened to assault someone in the real world, would the same laws apply to a threatening comment made online?

But in many ways, the legal landscape is changing rapidly. Lawmakers and judges are recognizing that when people interact online, dangerous, harmful, or criminal activities can take place. How do the laws apply to hate speech and harmful online communication?

Kevin Bollaert and Revenge Porn

On February 2, 2015, Kevin Bollaert was convicted in California for operating a revenge porn website. The website allowed jilted ex-lovers to post nude or suggestive photos of their exes, in some cases even posting their name, hometowns, employers’ names, and links to social media accounts. Bollaert was convicted under California’s relatively new anti-revenge porn law. Due to the multitude of plaintiffs, Bollaert was sentenced to 18 years in prison and $10,000 in restitution.

“Revenge porn” is a form of hate speech where a person’s images, videos, or information will be posted online. It’s a sexual shaming technique intended to punish or get revenge against former lovers or against anyone who a person is angry at.

Sixteen states now have laws to prevent revenge porn, and these laws vary depending on the state. The law used in Bollaert’s conviction was only passed on September 30, 2014, so Bollaert’s case is a judicial confirmation of a relatively new law.

Hate Speech, Revenge Porn, and the First Amendment

Hate speech is any speech that attacks a person or group of people on the basis of specific characteristics, like race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, or religion. As abhorrent as hate speech may be, the law generally does not prohibit someone from being abusive. In the United States, many groups engage in hate speech that is protected under the First Amendment as free speech, so the law must define hate speech more narrowly. Hate speech can only be prosecuted as hate speech if it has the potential to incite violence of prejudicial action against a person or group.

In the early days of the Internet, people who built hate-based websites or who made online comments that contained “fighting words” (words that tend to incite violence) were often held to be innocent of hate speech provisions, on the grounds that online communication was unlikely to incite violence in the real world. However, as we can see with revenge porn, not all forms of online speech are victimless, and online communication has the very real potential to incite violence or harm in the real world.

Victims of revenge porn (in the Bollaert case and in other similar situations) often report real-world harassment and discrimination as a result of online activities. Victims have reported being thrown out of their homes, being fired from their jobs, receiving threatening phone calls or letters delivered to their home address, and even being faced with stalkers or with people approaching them in person to threaten violence against them. Clearly, online communication has the potential to incite real-world violence, and this is the impetus behind many of the more recent laws.

The Changing Legal Landscape

Because it is now generally accepted that online communication has the potential to result in real-world harm, other states are adopting or updating their laws regarding revenge porn, defamation, and hate speech to reflect the potential harm of online communications.

Whitney Gibson, an attorney specializing in Internet defamation, says, “February’s ruling in Mr. Bollaert’s case and this subsequent sentencing is a big deal… In the short term, given the current construction of the Communications Decency Act – which grants most websites immunity for statement posted on the websites by third party users – I do not expect consumer complaint websites, such as Ripoff Report, to be subject to similar consequences. But that could eventually change.”

Hate speech, defamation, and revenge porn can all be carried out offline, where civil and criminal penalties are already well-established. But as people become more aware of the ways in which online communication can lead to real harm in the offline world, stronger laws are being drafted to govern Internet speech and more lawmakers and judges are taking online hate speech, defamation, and revenge porn seriously.

The post The Changing Legal Landscape Of Hate Speech & Content appeared first on Massive Brand PR.


Source: Massive Alliance

The Changing Legal Landscape Of Hate Speech & Content

In the legislative world, the Internet is still a newcomer. It’s challenging to figure out how laws intended to apply to real-world behavior should apply to online activity. For example, if a person threatened to assault someone in the real world, would the same laws apply to a threatening comment made online?

But in many ways, the legal landscape is changing rapidly. Lawmakers and judges are recognizing that when people interact online, dangerous, harmful, or criminal activities can take place. How do the laws apply to hate speech and harmful online communication?

Kevin Bollaert and Revenge Porn

On February 2, 2015, Kevin Bollaert was convicted in California for operating a revenge porn website. The website allowed jilted ex-lovers to post nude or suggestive photos of their exes, in some cases even posting their name, hometowns, employers’ names, and links to social media accounts. Bollaert was convicted under California’s relatively new anti-revenge porn law. Due to the multitude of plaintiffs, Bollaert was sentenced to 18 years in prison and $10,000 in restitution.

“Revenge porn” is a form of hate speech where a person’s images, videos, or information will be posted online. It’s a sexual shaming technique intended to punish or get revenge against former lovers or against anyone who a person is angry at.

Sixteen states now have laws to prevent revenge porn, and these laws vary depending on the state. The law used in Bollaert’s conviction was only passed on September 30, 2014, so Bollaert’s case is a judicial confirmation of a relatively new law.

Hate Speech, Revenge Porn, and the First Amendment

Hate speech is any speech that attacks a person or group of people on the basis of specific characteristics, like race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, or religion. As abhorrent as hate speech may be, the law generally does not prohibit someone from being abusive. In the United States, many groups engage in hate speech that is protected under the First Amendment as free speech, so the law must define hate speech more narrowly. Hate speech can only be prosecuted as hate speech if it has the potential to incite violence of prejudicial action against a person or group.

In the early days of the Internet, people who built hate-based websites or who made online comments that contained “fighting words” (words that tend to incite violence) were often held to be innocent of hate speech provisions, on the grounds that online communication was unlikely to incite violence in the real world. However, as we can see with revenge porn, not all forms of online speech are victimless, and online communication has the very real potential to incite violence or harm in the real world.

Victims of revenge porn (in the Bollaert case and in other similar situations) often report real-world harassment and discrimination as a result of online activities. Victims have reported being thrown out of their homes, being fired from their jobs, receiving threatening phone calls or letters delivered to their home address, and even being faced with stalkers or with people approaching them in person to threaten violence against them. Clearly, online communication has the potential to incite real-world violence, and this is the impetus behind many of the more recent laws.

The Changing Legal Landscape

Because it is now generally accepted that online communication has the potential to result in real-world harm, other states are adopting or updating their laws regarding revenge porn, defamation, and hate speech to reflect the potential harm of online communications.

Whitney Gibson, an attorney specializing in Internet defamation, says, “February’s ruling in Mr. Bollaert’s case and this subsequent sentencing is a big deal… In the short term, given the current construction of the Communications Decency Act – which grants most websites immunity for statement posted on the websites by third party users – I do not expect consumer complaint websites, such as Ripoff Report, to be subject to similar consequences. But that could eventually change.”

Hate speech, defamation, and revenge porn can all be carried out offline, where civil and criminal penalties are already well-established. But as people become more aware of the ways in which online communication can lead to real harm in the offline world, stronger laws are being drafted to govern Internet speech and more lawmakers and judges are taking online hate speech, defamation, and revenge porn seriously.

The post The Changing Legal Landscape Of Hate Speech & Content appeared first on Massive Alliance Ltd.


Source: Massive Alliance

Online Marketing: A Worthwhile Investment

Have you been wondering as a business owner if online marketing is worth the investment?  The answer plain and simple is yes.  That being said, like any other marketing endeavor, what works for one business may not be the best fit for all.  Online marketing is about putting together a program that works for the business, whether it is a focus on social media, SEO, online reviews, or any other avenue, the approach has to make sense for the business.  It is aimed at bringing consumer and business together in the digital world, so you must find the points where the two intersect.

Online Marketing is Effective

The main strategy of digital marketing is to maximize exposure, keep marketing costs low, and increase sales.  All of these should be a focus in any campaign that is being launched or tested.  Again making certain that you have the right strategy in place will be integral to the success of the program.

Many SMB’s believe that just having a website puts them firmly in the online arena, but the reality is that it has become much more complicated than that.  If you plan on driving traffic to your website and gaining good exposure for your business across multiple channels on the web, it takes time, know how, and lots of effort.  A standalone website with no other focus will be just that, a standalone website.

Websites and other online marketing strategies are also much more cost effective than other traditional marketing platforms, making the ROI on them much higher.  Not to mention the amount of detail that can be put into targeting a business’s VERY specific demographic can make it more like a sniper rifle, compared to traditional shotgun methods.

Online marketing also empowers the consumer, which helps to secure long term relationships.  If the consumer can research your business and find information that is relevant to support their wanting to do business with you, it will only help to secure long term buying relationships.

Additionally, the statistics that are available for online marketing methods are more than any human could possibly want!  All of the following online marketing methods have data on top of data, so you know what is working and what is not.

  • Email Open Rates and Conversion Rates
  • Website Traffic and Activity
  • Social Traffic and Activity
  • Video Views and Activity
  • PPC (Pay Per Click) Results
  • … and much more

 

Online marketing is more often than not a collaboration of a variety of different efforts that all come together to get your business the best exposure possible.  As with any marketing effort it does not happen overnight.  It takes expertise, effort, and patience to bring it home.  With the right strategy in place, it is however, a highly effective means of increasing sales and getting great exposure for a business!

The post Online Marketing: A Worthwhile Investment appeared first on Bennett Reputation Management.


Source: Bennett Reputation

Forbes: Nurture Your Most Valuable Asset: Your Reputation

In this review of Reputation.com CEO Michael Fertik’s The Reputation Economy, Forbes contributor Richard Eisenberg goes over some of the key concepts in the book, including how online reputation affects your everyday life and the many ways that companies are using algorithms to make reputation decisions about you. Read More >>


Source: fertik

Speaking Up About Equality

We take pride every day in the work that our customers — “Main Street” businesses like restaurants, salons, and boutiques — do to deliver experiences that respect and serve their diverse communities.

Main Street Hub’s mission is to create thriving local economies, and thriving local economies cannot co-exist with hate, fear, or unfairness. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong, and we stand against it.

So long as such discrimination is law in the State of Indiana, our company will not invest in operations, travel, or vendor relationships there. We will also end our relationships with local businesses in Indiana that choose to discriminate under the law against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation.

Finally, a word about our company’s home state of Texas: Our state laws also discriminate against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation, specifically with respect to marriage equality. In addition, a raft of bills are pending in the state legislature that would further enshrine discrimination into the law. If Texas legislators continue down this path of fear over leadership, they risk the economic development that companies like ours have brought to the state in the last decade.

We’re proud to join the list of companies standing against this discrimination, and we hope that others, specifically here in Texas, will do the same.

Sincerely,
Andrew Allison & Matt Stuart
Co-Founders, Main Street Hub


Source: mainstreet