Against Anonymity

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.