Can the law keep up with technology?

In a case that would have been impossible even five years ago, bad-girl rocker Courtney Love is being sued for libel by a fashion designer for allegedly slamming the woman on Twitter.

The suit claims that after a disagreement over what Love should pay Dawn Simorangkir for the clothes she designed, Love posted allegedly derogatory and false comments about the designer -- among them that she had a "history of dealing cocaine" -- on her now-discontinued Twitter feed.

But as technology evolves faster than the laws that govern free speech online, it's not just the famous who are finding trouble.

Consider the case of Amanda Bonnen and her former landlord. Bonnen, an Illinois resident, is accused of using Twitter to tell another user: "Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon Realty thinks it's okay."

Horizon Group Management LLC, the company that owned the apartment in question, sued Bonnen for libel over the alleged tweet. Horizon is seeking $50,000 in damages.

Legal experts say such Internet-related cases are being watched closely because they confront new and unaddressed areas of American law.

For example, how should a libel case be handled when it comes to social media? How can society balance accountability with free speech? And if information -- from private thoughts to public data -- is so readily available, how do we define what constitutes privacy?

Anonymity and immunity

In August 2008, a user of Blogger.com, a Google subsidiary, created "Skanks in NYC."

The blog assailed Liskula Cohen, 37, a Canadian-born cover girl who has appeared in Vogue and other fashion magazines, by featuring photos of Cohen captioned with derogatory terms.

Cohen sued Google to learn the name of the anonymous blogger on the grounds that the post was defamatory and libelous. A New York Supreme Court judge ordered Google to reveal the anonymous blogger's name, and Google complied.

The case provided insight into the debate between the competing values of privacy and free speech, said Jeffrey Toobin, CNN's senior legal analyst.

"You have a robust debate on a million different subjects every day on the Internet," he said. "But on the other hand, is that a license to damage people's reputation with knowing falsehood?"

The courts are trying to strike a balance between the two, Toobin said.

"There have been a lot of cases about trying to get behind the anonymity of the Internet," he said. "What the courts are ... saying is that you have to show good reason, you can't just frivolously ask."

Nicholas Thompson of Wired magazine said such cases make it clear that anonymity on the Web does not necessarily guarantee a measure of immunity.

"The more people learn about it, the more they're going to realize that laws do apply online," he said.

More HERE from CNN