People attacking other people in blogs and video has sparked some 60 libel lawsuits now in progress, according to the Media Law Resource Center. There's that YouTube.com video spoofing Hillary Clinton.  The video is being linked to Barack Obama, but Obama denies any ties to it.  Following the release of the video an anti-Barack Obama ad has appeared on the site, as well.

Since anyone with a computer and Internet access can get on myspace.com or youtube.com and post without censorship, inappropriate postings are possible.  In fact, if there's an inappropriate picture on myspace.com, it's up to the user to "flag" it.  But what happens after the picture is "flagged?" It probably gets lost in a database where someone might see it and do something about it. 

These Internet sites need video cops searching for these videos and blogs and take them off the site.  Since you can't say its ok for one site and not ok for another, this job should be mandatory for all Internet companies.  If they created these jobs, it would help the employment rate, cut out the embarrassment people feel when the post is against them, and cut down on the lawsuits.  They would need guidelines as to what constitutes inappropriate behavior, but if the content controllers used examples from past or in current lawsuits, it would be fairly easy. 

Lots of people who are being sued are just not aware that the same rules apply to this particular medium.YouTube has content editors, but according to the website the position responsibilities have nothing to do with being a watchdog for the site. A problem with YouTube is people usually seek out videos they've heard about.  If the media would stop publicizing these videos on the news then people wouldn't know they were out there to search for.  Why are these videos newsworthy anyway? Political ads attacking opponents aren't exactly new.  This has been done for a long time, and with the election coming up, it's a given there are going to be ads like the anti-Clinton one.

Dontdatehimgirl.com is a website begging for libel suits.  The site lets women post notes about a man she has dated urging other women not to date him.  Women can post the guy's name and his picture along with the various reasons why not to date him.  This site shouldn't even be up on the internet because it violates the man's privacy.

The blogs should have a warning on the main page telling people they are held accountable for what they write and briefly explain libel and privacy laws so, before users sign up for a blog account, they are aware of what could happen.  Lots of people who are being sued are just not aware that the same rules apply to this particular medium.  On most blogs users can make a post "private" to limit who can read what was written, allowing the user to write and have protection at the same time. 

There's also a problem with people posting anonymously, which makes it difficult to sue.  If these sites had content controllers they could just go in and delete them if they met specific guidelines which should be posted along with the libel and privacy laws on the first page of the internet site. 

Having content controllers would clear up any confusion about what shouldn't be on the internet if they post their guidelines.  People would be more informed about what they will be held accountable for and they would not have incidents in which people are bashed by others -- at least not on the Internet.