With the Internet revolution opening more avenues than ever for expression, the tendency to express oneself anonymously is on the rise. While anonymity may have been crucial in previous eras in order to avoid physical and emotional persecution, I believe anonymity today should be greatly reduced. Doing so will not only increase accountability and reliability in one’s speech, but also promote healthy and productive speech that is not emotionally detrimental to the receiver.
I do wholeheartedly agree that anonymous speech, whether on the Internet or some other medium, is fully protected by historical evidence. Talley v. California (1960) established that the scope of the First Amendment protects anonymity. In fact, the opinion of the court stressed that the Framers intended for anonymity to be protected [#1]. One who sides with this viewpoint would probably contend that anonymous speech is no different than any other type in that in contributes to the marketplace of ideas. However, I tend to err on the side of morality when it comes to situations like this one.
One may also make the argument that anonymity in speech acts a safeguard from retaliation to those who oppose the speech at hand. To that I respond by pointing out that while those consequences may have been exorbitant in the past, we live in a new day and age where one has the right to express him or herself however they want (that is, in accordance with the First Amendment) and not face persecution. It is safe to say that no one in the year 2007 will suffer the same fate as John Lilburne [#2] if their speech is controversial.
And moreover, I personally believe that if you take the time to express your opinions, you should possess the fortitude to stand up to any criticism you may encounter. “Take it like a man,” as they say. Furthermore, to me anonymity shows a lack of pride of authorship. There is no incentive to craft speech according to the standards ethics and accuracy (not to mention grammar). Which begs the question…if you have no pride in your own speech, is the expression really worth it?
A continued abuse of anonymity will only lead to more cowardly remarks. I shudder to myself every time I view a sports message board online and see grown men harshly criticizing middle school athletes over their performance. Not only are those people not accountable for their hateful words, but the detrimental affect the speech has on its receiver, depending on how it is received, could be catastrophic. The National Crime Prevention Council has launched an anti-cybeybullying campaign to combat this sort of thing, which I applaud [#3-5].
Others also stress that anonymous speech proves a realm of privacy which is completely independent of the “shield from retaliation” argument. Anyone with basic computer knowledge can tell you that this really can’t be absolute. Whether through subpoena or just plain Internet sleuthing, one’s identity can easily be revealed. And even if the medium is not electronic (i.e. publishing books or pamphlets under a pseudonym), the fact that the technological revolution brings with it a seemingly endless amount of ways to access an always-growing database of knowledge, one’s identity once again is just a few mouse clicks away from disclosure.
So you must be wondering now: what does this crazy blogger exactly suggest as an alternative for anonymity? Do I think that every piece of expression should be required to display the author’s name, contact information, religious affiliation, and favorite flavor of yogurt? No, I do not. Not only is that notion absurd, but also quite the inconvenience.
Instead, I turn to the recent insights of columnist Sascha Segan in the November 6th, 2007, edition of PC Magazine [#6]. As he puts it, “[anonymity] lets people release the worst in themselves through trolling and online fraud, and disconnects people from a reality where you’re held accountable for the stupid things you say.” He goes on to propose that each and every individual ought to be honest and straightforward in their speech, unless they “truly have a need for it.” This is a very poignant point. In one of my previous blogs, I articulate that there ought to be definite line separating “the people’s right to know” and information that ought to be kept away from the public for their own good [#7]. For that reason, I can see the need for a modern day Deep Throat (as Segan puts it); but only in rare cases.
This solution seems apt. But let’s face it: we can’t force anyone and everyone to give up their precious anonymity. Americans are stubborn like that. That’s why I couldn’t help but chuckle at one of Segan’s alternatives. He proposes that we create an “internet ghetto,” where the obdurate ones can troll to their heart’s content. While Segan poses this satirically, I think it’s quite the idea. There’s already enough of this “sludge” on the Internet. Why not corral in into a specific area? At least then, the average receiver would know if they are taking in speech that is accountable, credible, and from an author who takes pride in contributing to his speech to the marketplace of ideas.
#1: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=362&invol=60
#2: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/STUlilburne.htm
#3: http://www.ncpc.org/cyberbullying
#4: http://youtube.com/watch?v=QYaWNYXpBis
#5: http://youtube.com/watch?v=seOQyMvG99w
#6: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2193392,00.asp
#7: http://tditman.blogspot.com/2007/10/blog-2-100907-summer-of-sin.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I have to chuckle at your mention of needing to state your favorite yogurt flavor. Since I feel as though anonymous speech is a precious thing that we as Americans have the ability to exercise, I was going to pose such a drastic example. Speaking anonymously allows for Americans to be able to express them selfs without fear or shame of what they have to say. Anonymous speech has become like Starbucks. More and more of it keeps popping up everywhere you turn.
Not mandating that authors stamp their name on everything they write allows for a stronger market place of ideas. Some may fear that what they are writing will get them into trouble and therefore they will be hesitant to publish whatever it is. By allowing citizens to write without having the stigma of their name being attached it gives the author more free rain.
I agree that as an author you should be proud of what you write and be willing to publish it with your name on the work, however it is not always a case of pride in ones work. In many cases anonymous authors are writing about very controversial issues. By disclosing their identity it may cause them to be judged,classified or in extreme cases it may even cost them their jobs and lively hoods.
Just like the old saying "no risk no reward" the same idea comes into play for anonymous speech. With anonymous speech comes the prospect of falsity and fabrication, however it also can bring great diversification of ideas and truly create free robust debate.
hmm, you bring up very valid points in defending authorship and such. It is true that many writings with your name on it are the ones that you value the most because it says something about you. You do not want to write something that will make you seem like a jerk and then sign it. People that publish pamphlets or editorials or any other written material will more likely have valid points if their name is published next to the article rather than being anonymous. However, I think that there should be some level of anonymity that should not be looked unfavorably on. If someone does not want to be associated with a controversial idea, then I think it is perfectly fine to write anonymously. A person does not want their name tainted forever just because people do not see eye to eye with them.
I do like how you found that National Crime Prevention Council's anti-cyber bullying campaign. It is interesting to see what will become of it. It is horrible to know that children can be detrimentally affected by adults' anonymous comments. That kind of anonymity should have its limits and should be regulated.
I also found the internet ghetto concept interesting. I would like to see how that works. I guess it could be a good idea because then you would have all the anonymous junk siphoned off to one part of the net and can browse with more efficiency afterwards.
Interesting to know.
The information here is great. I will invite my friends here.
Thanks
Post a Comment