Anonymity in the 18th Century and Today

The United States, to a certain extent, was founded on anonymity; however, this claim cannot be used to defend complete anonymity on the internet today. Anonymity has changed significantly from the 18th century for two main reasons. First, anonymity during the Founding was primarily a part of the political sphere. Today anonymity is very much a part of the private and public spheres insofar as normal citizens are more affected than they were two hundred years ago. Second, the scale of anonymity (i.e. the ability for people to express themselves anonymously) today is different than in the 18th century. Access to the internet has allowed millions of people a convenient way to express themselves anonymously. If individuals wanted to publish something anonymously in 1776, they needed money to mass produce their ideas. Today anonymity is essentially cost-free (fiscally) on the internet.

As we’ve seen in the readings this week, anonymous bloggers and individuals online have the ability to do significant damage to peoples’ lives, emotionally and economically. Thus, something needs to be done to address the consequences of anonymity on the internet. Whatever actions policymakers choose to take, they must keep in mind the tension between the freedom to speak and express oneself and the freedom to ensure that individuals’ reputations aren’t destroyed or their privacy isn’t invaded. (Solove) I believe that there are several options available to policymakers. First, the law can essentially remain as it is and allow anonymous bloggers to be identified only for legal purposes. The anonymous individual, however, should be given a certain amount of time to contend his being revealed. The second option is that owners of websites and blogs become legally more responsible for the content posted on their site. They would be the ones to remove damaging content (if asked) and they would decide if it is necessary to remove that content. If users were denied the removal of a post, then they could take their case to the courts and the websites would have to defend themselves. This option would not significantly reduce free speech as a whole since there would be thousands or even millions of people making these decisions; thus, there would not be a uniform censoring of speech.

The best option in my opinion is for policymakers to take the first approach where the law essentially remains the same. I also think that a campaign should be launched to encourage websites to take a more active role in patrolling their websites for truly damaging material. Congress could come up with some sort of incentive program for websites to ensure free and appropriate speech. For example, the more websites have legal suits filed against them for not taking material down, the likelier they are to be reviewed and issued a financial penalty.