Should those in favour of free speech on the internet support those who speak freely, but anonymously? Not necessarily.
|
US sales consultancy Dendrite International brought a libel case against four individuals in May 2000, as a result of anonymous statements made about the company on a Yahoo!-hosted message board. Dendrite requested that Yahoo! release the names of the four, and petitioned Superior Court judge Kenneth C MacKenzie to identify the posters publicly.
|
In November 2000 Judge MacKenzie upheld the anonymity of two of the defendants, but ruled that Dendrite could subpoena Yahoo! for the identities of two other posters. 'The internet has become a forum for vast discussion reaching many individuals with diverse backgrounds and opinions', he wrote. 'These four individuals were utilising that forum to voice their opinions and engage in discussion regarding issues important to them. They were doing so under the protection of anonymity, which…encourages the free flow of ideas.'
|
There may be some truth in this statement. But if anonymity can help some debates, it can do a lot to devalue others. And for the majority of internet users who shelter behind anonymity, the issue seems to be less about free speech than it is about cheap words.
|
To be overly critical of the principle of online anonymity is seen by many free speech and privacy activists as an act of heresy. Because it enables political dissent, it is assumed that online anonymity is generally a good thing - even though it has demonstrably been put to bad uses, through spreading lies and gossip. As David Sobel, the general counsel for the US-based Electronic Privacy Information Center (1), put it: 'Online anonymity plays a critical role in fostering free expression on the internet, and has clearly contributed to the popularity of the medium.' Many net users see their ability to post anonymously merely as an extension of their efforts to maintain online privacy, by controlling knowledge about what sites and bulletin boards they visit, and to whom they chat online.
|
Those living under an oppressive regime may have good reason to seek this level of online privacy. But for net users to behave this way in democratic societies is surely to exhibit an unnecessary degree of paranoia.
|
Where free speech is accepted, people should be able to speak out without the need for anonymity, and they should be able to be publicly associated with their words without the fear of punishment. In regimes that do not accept the principle of free speech, where the expression of dissent has harmful consequences, online anonymity is a vital tool. The anonymity question also depends on the issues at stake: for example, whistle-blowers who would face certain dismissal from their jobs if they were caught rely on online anonymity to reveal the truth about corporate or institutional malpractice.
|
But in practice, the exercise of online anonymity today makes little discrimination between the right to express political dissent and make legitimate criticisms, and the facility to take a cheap shot that has little basis in truth, without having to face the consequences.
|
 | | Contributors on one site prefer to be known as 'anonymous cowards' |
|
Internet re-mailers like Anonymizer.com (2), Rewebber.de (3) or Freedom.net (4), which hide the identity of somebody posting a message, make the use of anonymity online easy and, consequently, commonplace. This unthinking use of online anonymity - particularly when an opinion expressed brings no real threat of retribution - raises the most doubts.
|
While there is widespread support for the principle of online anonymity, some question its commonplace use - and abuse. Summing up the 1995 case of McIntyre v Ohio Elections Commission (5), Justice Scalia stated that anonymity 'facilitates wrong by eliminating accountability, which is ordinarily the very purpose of the anonymity'. To create legal protection for words communicated anonymously without legitimate reason to expect 'threats, harassment or reprisals' was 'a distortion of the past that will lead to a coarsening of the future'. Sissela Bok, author of Secrets: On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation, argues that anonymity 'would force us to disregard the legitimate claims of those persons who might be injured, betrayed or ignored as the result of secrets inappropriately kept'.
|
While there are many who richly deserve criticism, there are victims of false allegations who have a right to defend their reputation. And the abuse of online anonymity means that everybody who assumes it - even those for whom it is vital - is tarred with the same brush. They are assumed to deserve to have their identities uncovered, with whatever subsequent retribution this may bring. The spreader of idle gossip and falsehoods may get their just desserts this way; but those speaking out against real injustice or fraud are the ones who will really suffer.
|
The abuse of anonymity does not stop with spreading lies. Increasingly, it seems that people will hide their identity in order to remain unaccountable for their opinions. For example on Slashdot (6), a site discussing technical issues relating to information technology, the discussion threads feature contributions from people preferring to be known as 'anonymous coward'. On a site discussing technical issues, the worst anybody can expect is strong disagreement - even if it is posed impolitely, or abusively. Yet participants in such a forum automatically assume it is acceptable to hide their true identity, even though there is no possibility of retribution for what they have posted.
|
If all an author has to face is strong verbal or written opposition, they have to consider the positive impact of being identified with, and publicly justifying, their words. Knowledge of the author and his background helps his audience to judge the validity of the ideas expressed. If the author hides behind anonymity, it is hard to gain any sense of his credibility, or that of his views; and having an informed debate with somebody who refuses to be publicly associated with their words is almost impossible.
|
Online anonymity has its place, and the ability to use it is a crucial aspect of free speech. But it should not be assumed without serious consideration of the issues at stake. The widespread assumption of anonymity by those merely reluctant to stand by their words is just cowardly. If the only punishment your words will receive is criticism, you should be bold enough to speak them. If not, why not keep quiet?
|
© Dave Amis February 2001
Read on:
spiked-issue: Free speech
(1) Electronic Privacy Information Center
(2) Anonymizer.com
(3) Rewebber.de
(4) Freedom.net
(5) U.S. April 18, 1995
(6) Slashdot
|
|
