The First Amendment protects us from federal restrictions on free speech. It does not, however, give us the right to say whatever we please, in whatever way we see fit. The example of shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is a dead horse and so I will not dwell on it. But it is important to recognize that anonymous speech is a privilege. When it comes to the Internet, I do not think this is a privilege we should have.
What is important, as Meiklejohn aptly notes, is “not that everyone shall speak, but that everything worth saying shall be said.” Anonymity gives those who would otherwise not speak an opportunity to make their thoughts known without repercussions. This is a benefit to society, so long as what these anonymous people have to say needs saying. Deep Throat reminds us that such instances do occasionally arise. More often, however, anonymity emboldens people to say things that do not have to be said.
Section 230 preserves the ability of commentators to abuse the Internet as a public forum. Yet by posting anonymously, delinquents can spread false rumors about others. By impersonating others, they can defame someone without ever being called to task for it. It is no wonder that corporations have resorted to CyberSLAPPing: bloggers are now able to post anonymously and spread rumors, so the corporations are using a dirty trick of their own in order to weed out rumor-mongers. Anonymity has led to the proliferation of online defamation, even if in some cases such defamation is merited.
I believe malicious defamation is a greater problem than the protection of internet anonymity. This is why I would like to see the institution of government-issued internet IDs. Setting aside questions of government surveillance, such a system would not only make misleading impersonation of others impossible, but more importantly would encourage people to write only what words they mean, what words they do not mind having associated with their name. At first glance, some of you may find this system terrifying. Nevertheless, I contend that those things worth saying are worth taking credit for. There are laws that protect against unjust persecution for speaking one’s mind. Without anonymity, whistleblowers could still look to these for recompense. But those who spread malice for their own satisfaction would hopefully think twice before posting their comments.
Do you think a system of internet identification is feasible? We touched on this in class and quickly wrote it off, but I am interested in hearing whether people think internet accountability truly is something to be avoided.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
David, I believe government issued internet identification is very feasible. As you noted, however, many will find this system terrifying. Instead of having government issued internet ID's, I advocate for internet ID's issued by ISP's. In this instance, government surveillance is not as much of an issue.
ReplyDeleteI have to say, though, that I disagree with the notion that anonymity on the internet should not be permissible. I believe that if people have internet ID's they would know that their actions on the internet can be traced back to them, despite the anonymous veil they hide behind (in Solove's article he calls it traceable anonymity). However, net ID's still allow room for anonymous comments. Only those that are truly harmful would lose the privilege of anonymity.
Furthermore, it appears that part of the issue with anonymity, as pointed out in the FAQ reading, is people are unaware that what they do on the net can be traced back to them. As Citron noted, people often act out with socially destructive actions because they believe they are fully protected by anonymity. If people are issued net ID's, they know they can be traced on the internet.
The question that arises from my proposal is, why would an ISP go through the extra (and costly) trouble of issuing numerous internet ID's? Perhaps, the government could offer a tax break for ISP's who provide internet ID's.
Are there any other theories of the First Amendment that would lead us to believe that anonymity promotes First Amendment values? Autonomy perhaps? What about Balkin's cultural democracy?
ReplyDeleteDavid, it's wonderful to hear someone argue against the position generally taken by most of your classmates. There are certainly weighty interests on both sides of the anonymity question. Your idea that if we had online IDs, "[t]here are laws that protect against unjust persecution for speaking one's mind." I wonder how effective these laws can ever really be. Consider the many cases in which it would be hard to prove that an employer or potential employer had penalized you for espousing certain views. For example, employees anxious about job promotions might be worried about attaching their name to political statements at odds with the politics of their firm or boss. As another example, young professors seeking tenure often exercise tight control over the words to which they sign their name, not wanting to offend any of the people in a position to vote on their tenure. For people in these kinds of positions, an avenue for anonymous speech is probably very valuable, both for them as individuals and in terms of the speech they could contribute (anonymously) to the public discourse. As a parallel example that may demonstrate the ineffectiveness, in practice, of some laws designed to protect individuals from "unjust persecution," consider whether, since the passage of Title VII (which prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin), homosexuals have any justifiable fear that being open about their sexuality with their employers will result in adverse employment decisions, barriers to promotion and the like…
ReplyDelete