Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: Stewart, D. R. (2013). When retweets attack: Are twitter users liable for republishing the defamatory tweets of others? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 90, 233–247. Article first published online: April 11, 2013;Issue published: June 1, 2013

Abstract: Under the republication doctrine, repeating false and defamatory statements has traditionally triggered liability for the repeater. However, some confusion has emerged regarding retweeting posts of others on Twitter, the popular microblog site. Does retweeting the defamatory statement of another open the retweeter to liability? This article examines exceptions to the republication doctrine, such as the single publication rule, the wire service defense, and the Communications Decency Act (CDA) to answer this question. A review of court opinions leads to the conclusion that Section 230 of the CDA provides a powerful shield for users of interactive computer services such as Twitter.

Journal Article 2: Reader, B. (2012). Free Press vs. Free speech? The rhetoric of “civility” in regard to anonymous online comments. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89, 495–513. Article first published online: May 22, 2012;Issue published: September 1, 2012

Abstract: This study explores the issue of “civility” in anonymous comments posted to news media websites. A textual analysis of journalistic essays about the issue and more than 900 audience-member responses to those essays suggests a disconnect between professional journalists and most forum participants over the purpose of such “virtual village squares,” particularly with regard to the role of anonymity. Using the theoretical framework of “concordance,” the analysis suggests that journalists and audiences have very different conceptualizations about “civility” and the role of anonymity in civil discourse.

Journal Article 3: Chen, H., Beaudoin, C. E., & Hong, T. (2016). Protecting oneself online: The effects of negative privacy experiences on privacy protective behaviors. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93, 409–429. Article first published online: March 23, 2016;Issue published: June 1, 2016

Abstract: With a general basis in protection motivation theory, this study builds a three-stage model from online negative privacy experiences to online privacy protection motivation to online privacy protection behaviors. With 2013 survey data (N = 528), a well-fitting structural equation model was tested, indicating general support for the model’s progression. There was support in only one instance, however, for the mediation role of online privacy protection motivation. In that case, awareness of online information disclosure mediated the effects of information stolen on contact management. The other protection motivation—online privacy concerns—had stronger effects on the four online privacy protection behaviors.

Journal Article 4: Stoycheff, E. (2016). Under surveillance: Examining facebook’s spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA internet monitoring. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93, 296–311. Article first published online: March 8, 2016;Issue published: June 1, 2016

Abstract: Since Edward Snowden exposed the National Security Agency’s use of controversial online surveillance programs in 2013, there has been widespread speculation about the potentially deleterious effects of online government monitoring. This study explores how perceptions and justification of surveillance practices may create a chilling effect on democratic discourse by stifling the expression of minority political views. Using a spiral of silence theoretical framework, knowing one is subject to surveillance and accepting such surveillance as necessary act as moderating agents in the relationship between one’s perceived climate of opinion and willingness to voice opinions online. Theoretical and normative implications are discussed.