Promoting Civility & Insuring Accountability
Advocates for requiring a person to use their real name (or at least a recognized user name) primarily argue that such a policy raises the level of civility and quality of discourse on the internet, fosters accountability, discourages trolls and abusive posts and provides valuable contextual information for the reader to assess the post. Persons who are defamed anonymously are often unable to seek judicial relief because the wrongdoers are anonymous. And, there are numerous example of persons abusing their power and avoiding accountability for what they say by hiding behind the cloak of anonymity. The poster child for this latter concern was the U.S. Attorney in New Orleans, who was a highly respected attorney and one of the longest serving U.S. Attorneys in the country, but resigned in December of 2012 when it was discovered that two of his top deputies were using the internet to anonymously attack persons their office was investigating. Another example is the Cleveland, Ohio State Judge who made anonymous comments about several high profile cases that were pending before her and then sued the paper when she was outed. Slate Senior Editor Emily Bazelon reflects the views of many when she argues that a free democracy is better off when everyone is forced to put their name to their words, noting that online anonymous users are poisoning civil discourse with their vile and defamatory comments, all under the excuse of "free speech." 4Chan, Whisper, Yik Yak and other anonymous sites have become vehicles for racist, misogynist and generally hateful commentary without any accountability.Protecting Whistleblowers & Fostering Robust Speech
Proponents of anonymity acknowledge that abuses may sometimes occur, but argue that anonymous speech has a long and hallowed tradition in our country and, indeed, enjoys constitutional protection. Absent anonymity, speech will be unnecessarily chilled, they argue. How many abused women, whistleblowers and political dissidents will come forward if they must do so using their real names? Anonymous Facebook and Twitter communications were essential during the Arab Spring and anonymity allows victims of domestic violence to rebuild their lives where abusers cannot follow. In a recent post, David Maas of the Electronic Frontier Foundation identifies 16 different groups of persons who benefit from anonymity besides trolls and political dissidents. Maas argues that anonymity is important to anyone who doesn't want every facet of their online life tied to a Google search of their name. He focuses on the free speech promoting aspects of anonymity when he argues " To suggest anonymity should be forbidden because of troll-noise is just as bad as suggesting a ban on protesting because the only demonstrators you have ever encountered are from the Westboro Baptist Church—the trolls of the picket world.The website geekfeminism.org has created a Wiki which compiles a list of persons harmed by a real names policy.
Some commentators argue that anonymity actually promotes truth and trustworthiness on the internet. http://irevolution.net/2013/10/22/trustworthiness-and-truth/. And, of course, review sites like Avvo and Yelp depend on anonymity to encourage users to give candid reviews of services and products and have vigorously defended the right of anonymity by resisting efforts to unmask the identity of site users. Although courts have generally been supportive of protecting the anonymity of online reviewers, there have been some exceptions, particularly when a plaintiff claims he or she has been defamed by a false review or that the reviewer violated a term of employment. For examples of recent court rulings in this area see here, here, here, here and here.
Traditional media, who are struggling to adjust to the online world, have adopted various approaches. Some newspapers allow anonymous comments, but editors moderate all posts by reserving the right to delete comments that violate the papers posted community guidelines, such as no racist, sexist or personal attacks. KSL TV follows this approach in its Comments Policy. This is labor intensive, however, and with the economic challenges traditional media, this approach has lost favor of late. The Salt Lake Tribune allows opaque user names, but you are required to have a real email address in order to open an account which is a prerequisite to posting comments. Comments are not moderated by Tribune editors, but are subject to being deleted if they violate the Tribune's terms of use. Other newspapers permit readers to self police the comments by allowing readers to give a thumbs up or thumbs down on each comment. If a particular comment receives a certain number of down votes it is removed. With Facebook's ubiquity and the ability to log onto a site via Facebook, many newspapers allow a commenter to check in with Facebook and have reported that such a policy has improved the quality of comments.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Professor Dryer's take on the matter. The most important reason for supporting anonymous internet speech is that anonymous speech is Constitutionally protected. Even weighing competing policy implications (cyberbullying, etc), the current legal regime has struck an optimal balance by recognizing this Constitutional right, while allowing true abuse to be policed by judicial decree. Furthermore, and tying this into the "Question of the Week," without a right to be forgotten, it is dangerous to immortalize non-anonymous internet posts. People have the right to make mistakes, or even just change, grow into different people, and have evolving life styles and opinions. Mandated non-anonymous internet speech would stay with that person for the rest of their life (in this country, under the current law). Anonymous speech allows a person to live an evolving personal life that is not searchable by employers, co-workers, and a world-wide audience. Perhaps if the "right to be forgotten" is adopted in this country could an argument for mandated non-anonymity be made. Even then, there are strong arguments against it--especially, that anonymous speech is a Constitutional right.
ReplyDeleteI am intrigued by the questions that this issue raises, in particular the free speech right. We know that freedom of speech is not an absolute right and the government can restrict certain types of speech under certain circumstances (i.e. True threats, Commercial speech, etc.), however it is one of the most valued right that we have as Americans. I think that the framers of the constitution were more concerned about protecting those brave individuals who dared to speak out against injustice without hiding behind opaque names. To support this, I point to the declaration of independence, nobody told king George to "shove it"all the while hiding behind a fabricated or hidden identity. The question then becomes how far would they go to protect free speech? I would not argue that they would object to expanding the right to protect anonymity in order to protect the entire right itself, but I think they would take issue at how far it has gone, or potentially could go. I am intrigued by the judicially compelled disclosure of identity process and think that it should be used more liberally in the interests of justice and protection of those who are vulnerable to the harms than could be done by anonymity.
ReplyDeleteIn this week’s Question of the Week, one of the reasons I answered that the U.S. Congress should adopt by statute a Right to be Forgotten is that the state-level enforcement of such a right is impractical, given the disruptive nature of the internet. However, this disruptive nature is not limited to the U.S., and companies like Facebook, Twitter, etc. are accessible to people across the world. Many of these countries do not have a constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech or the guarantees offered by their respective constitution do not reach far enough. Thus, when companies that operate in multiple countries adopt a real names policy, there are broader ramifications to consider, which go beyond whether or not the U.S. decides to adopt a right to be forgotten. Although the U.S. constitution has checks and balances that ensure people don’t go to prison without due process for merely expressing dissenting opinions, the same cannot be said in many other places in the world. While Prof. Dryer’s article, is insightful and explores this issue from a U.S. centric worldview, the internet extends far beyond the U.S. In many of those places, exposing someone’s true identity can have serious repercussions, and global corporate citizens like Facebook and Google, who enjoy the benefit of a globalized economy and the protection of laws in countries like the U.S. bear far more responsibility to ensure that the medium that allows them to operate remains a conduit for free speech throughout the world. We would not have had an Arab Spring if people were unable to communicate without fear of repercussions, and there are many more regimes that their citizens can only dare to challenge if the internet remains a viable medium for doing so. A real name policy would undermine the critical role that the internet plays in enabling free speech everywhere. Therefore, given the critical importance of free speech, a real names policy simply does not make sense.
ReplyDeleteOne troublesome result of placing restrictions on the ability to be anonymous online concerns the vulnerable and their need to protect their identity. Women suffering from domestic abuse would suffer the repercussions of being forced to hand over their e-mail--even in anonymous posting as their abuser may have access to their e-mail account. Especially troublesome, are e-mails containing information of on-line e-counseling sessions.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the question remains in regards to the First Amendment and freedom of speech at school; many things that are said over the internet amongst the same group of students that attend school would not be tolerated. Yet, completely disregarding the value of anonymity would not necessarily thwart the abuse in these situations, as many times the child has an idea who the perpetrator of the on-line cyberbullying is. Therefore, schools must find other resources, tools, and tricks to combat this growing trend.
Furthermore, an individual with AIDS would find giving out their e-mail or other private information problematic in regards to their obvious private health information. In fact, such websites should in fact implement sufficient safeguards to protect any information that is even freely given. In addition, many youths in the LGBTQ community rely on a safe online community where their complete anonymity should be respected. In addition, the freedom to be able to complain and report sexual harassment without fearing recourse, is also further benefited by complete anonymity. The exposure of sensitive subjects such as sexual assault in the military relies heavily on anonymity. Moreover, any “troll noise” would arguably be solved by the moderators of the blog/website, or judicial disclosure.
Also, the sexual harassment that occurs on the web for public figures that challenge cultural norms—such as misogyny in video games—have other such recourse to take down information such as libel, privacy torts, and additional.Because of these factors I would heavily lean on the side of anonymity, develop safeguards, and enact regulation protecting the “right to be forgotten” while respecting complete anonymity.
I think a black and white approach to this issue does not adequately address the nuances of speech that is anonymous but protected by the First Amendment and speech that is anonymous but otherwise unprotected because it is libelous or otherwise unprotected. The free speech rights of the LGBTQ community, victims of domestic violence, and others who need the shield of anonymity to express their views without fear of repercussionsseems to precious to subject to an unprincipled, un-nuanced policy or law related anonymity. I do not think that there should be a state or federal law that dictates the substance of a private companies anonymity policies, and it is hard to imagine such a law would be sufficiently narrow to survive constitutional muster. I do think, however, that anonymous speech that contains content that does not enjoy First Amendment protections should be subject to a court's subpoena powers. In other words, a person should not be able to hide behind a pseudonym when the content of the speech is not protected. The benefits of anonymous speech is undeniable. However, the right to anonymous speech, like every other right, cannot be absolute. Unfettered anonymous speech could potentially do as much harm as good. Consequently, a court should be able pierce the veil of anonymity as a check and balance on the right to anonymity.
ReplyDeleteI think a black and white approach to this issue does not adequately address the nuances of speech that is anonymous but protected by the First Amendment and speech that is anonymous but otherwise unprotected because it is libelous or otherwise unprotected. The free speech rights of the LGBTQ community, victims of domestic violence, and others who need the shield of anonymity to express their views without fear of repercussionsseems to precious to subject to an unprincipled, un-nuanced policy or law related anonymity. I do not think that there should be a state or federal law that dictates the substance of a private companies anonymity policies, and it is hard to imagine such a law would be sufficiently narrow to survive constitutional muster. I do think, however, that anonymous speech that contains content that does not enjoy First Amendment protections should be subject to a court's subpoena powers. In other words, a person should not be able to hide behind a pseudonym when the content of the speech is not protected. The benefits of anonymous speech is undeniable. However, the right to anonymous speech, like every other right, cannot be absolute. Unfettered anonymous speech could potentially do as much harm as good. Consequently, a court should be able pierce the veil of anonymity as a check and balance on the right to anonymity.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is value in protecting anonymous speech. The First Amendment argument that has been mentioned is certainly one of the stronger arguments. It is almost certain that speech over the Internet would be chilled in the absence of anonymity. Against this constitutionally protected interest in free speech is the argument that anonymity promotes civility and ensures accountability. Neither civility nor accountability is constitutionally protected so it seems as though these arguments start at a disadvantage.
ReplyDeleteThe terms of use of different websites address the civility argument by stipulating certain conduct for the use of their site and stating that offensive content (however they define that) can be removed. While not all sites have the requirements, they are at least a start in addressing civility, thus weakening the argument that posts should not be anonymous because of lack of civility.
The accountability argument is one that I would think has become weaker in the sense that with all the information out there, you could argue that you are never really anonymous. The incident cited about the US Attorney from New Orleans would seem less likely today than it was 5 years ago as people (especially those in high profile positions) are becoming more aware that their online activity is not anonymous (at least in theory). Even if this is true, there is probably still a sense that people would say things that they wouldn’t otherwise if the statements weren’t immediately attributable to them. In spite of this possibility, the accountability gained would not outweigh the benefits to the constitutionally protected area of free speech that anonymity affords.
This argument about anonymity also brought up some of the issues raised in the TED talk assigned last week. One of the speaker’s points seemed to be that privacy isn’t a concern only for those who are doing something “bad.” The same argument could apply to anonymity. It is not just for those who would post “bad” or inappropriate things, but also for those people (some of whom were identified in David Maas’ article) who may for any number of reasons want to remain anonymous.
I thought Vik’s argument brought up a compelling point in favor of anonymity. When viewed through a US viewpoint, the lack of anonymity may have much less dire consequences than a lack of anonymity in other countries