A well-done analysis of how the threat posed to free speech by the guilty verdict in the MySpace suicide case — though flawed by an expert's reference to felonies when, in fact, the suspect was convicted of misdemeanors.

This piece lacks balance. All the sources are critical of the verdict- we don't get a nuanced articulation of the prosecution's argument.

Very one sided and does little to cover the totallity of issues of the case.

The reason this article is vague and confusing is because internet usage laws are also vague and confusing. The article places too much emphasis on the danger to freedom of speech, ignoring precedents of real law. For instance, the defense’s contention the defendant should not be held responsible for violating MySpace’s rules because she had not read them conflicts with ignorance of laws is no excuse.

An important story that despite the tragedy of a girl's suicide considers the implications for all of us who are now exposed the criminal charges for not reading and understanding the on-line contracts attached to web sites.

Good journalism starts with a good story. This is a good story

It's an OK aticle, but I felt the main problem was that it was geared toward one side (i.e. "this was a bad verdict"). It would have added value to provide commetary from those who agree with the verdict.

Fairly good, but people seem to think that the right to free speech means they can shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. It doesn't, but the story doesn't begin to address this issue. Needs more work, only recommended for what it doens't say, not for what it does say.