litigation

This page considers litigation regarding 'internet addiction' and its consequences.

It covers -

• introduction

     introduction

The preceding pages have indicated that there is no general acceptance in the health sector or wider community of the notion of 'internet addiction' as a discrete psychological disorder or physiological condition.

Lack of acceptance has not seriously inhibited emergence of a therapy industry (much of which, of course, is spruiked online). Other than in totalitarian regimes such as China, courts and other bodies have been more reluctant to give cyber addiction strong recognition in law.

Such recognition would potentially enable successful litigation by 'addicts' against service providers, employers and institutions that fail to save the victim from exposure to the net or fail to provide support such as counselling and medical leave.

It would also provide excuses for action - 'I stole to feed my habit', 'the net made me homicidal' and so forth - and even assertions that failure to provide therapy or connectivity in prisons violates the rights of inmates.

In practice there appears to have been few attempts to use a cyber version of the notorious US 'twinkies' defence (diminished responsibility for homophobic homicide on the basis of excessive ingestion of sweet biscuits).

In 2007 James Pacenza sued IBM for $US5 million after he was fired by IBM for visiting an adult chat room during the workday. Pacenza claimed that he is an internet addict who deserves treatment rather than dismissal. He had supposedly visited the chat rooms from IBM premises and via his employer's corporate network as "self medication" for traumatic stress incurred on military service in 1969. That stress caused him to become "a sex addict, and with the development of the internet, an internet addict". Pacenza claimed protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), discussed here.

IBM responded that its policy against surfing adult sites is clear and that Pacenza had been warned four months prior to dismissal. "Plaintiff was discharged by IBM because he visited an internet chat room for a sexual experience during work after he had been previously warned." IBM unsurprisingly noted that sexual behaviour disorders are specifically excluded from the ADA.

In seeking dismissal of the lawsuit it argued that Pacenza was fired because "he logged on a Web site that contained sexual content on an IBM-owned computer during the workday" (and sent/received messages featuring references to adult activities) rather than for using a chat room as such. It contended that although it has treatment programs for employees "with illnesses" IBM had no knowledge of Pacenza having a specific condition.

Observers asked whether IBM - or an Australian employer - would be liable if an employee 'self-medicated' by reading adult content magazines in the workplace or claimed a 'telephone addiction'.

 

    next page  (mobile addiction?)