While these panelists diverge on the precise metaphor — ‘picking through a minefield,’ ‘hacking through the underbrush,’ ‘navigating uncharted waters’ -- they all agree that the web poses novel dilemmas and hazards for truth-seeking and speaking citizens.  First the good news: “There was a conscious decision by Congress to give online space some breathing room,” says David Ardia, shielding website operators “who allow others to use their site to speak out” from liability for some published content. This has permitted the explosive rise of YouTube and blogging services that serve as platforms for the masses. On the other hand, copyright and other legal claims are being successfully prosecuted against website hosts and posters. Ardia worries about the underreported phenomenon of citizen journalists who post on the web and find themselves “fighting an authority.” There is “an extensive chilling effect,” says Ardia “If you discover information that shows government corruption or puts powerful institutions on the defensive, you run the real risk of having them lawyer up, come after you, or put you in a position where you can’t afford to stand up for your rights.” Another emerging issue: When web content is construed as invading privacy, legal suits arise that lead to a delicate dance between free speech and privacy. “Horrible things are said and done through the internet,” says Ardia, “but overall the impact is far more beneficial than harmful. As we start to fix instances of bad conduct, we run a great risk of correcting one thing, but at the cost of speech that should be protected.” While the Obama Administration has pledged to make government more transparent, there is wild inconsistency in how federal, state and local governments make their work available. Daniel Schuman describes how some public authorities offer “giant data sets” lacking the kind of sophisticated formats that enable fruitful vetting. Congress members must post an earmarks reque...