Sunday Dialog on Anonymity and Incivility
The Times chose Anonymity and Incivility as the topic for one of its Sunday Dialog pieces, and included a letter from me as one of the responses.
If I'd had more space, I would also have pointed out that unless you are a computer whiz, there is no such thing as anonymous speech on the Internet. While you may choose to adopt the screen name Mark Twain, anyone with a court order can force the company that provides you with internet access to reveal that your real name is Samuel Gompers—and thereby hold you accountable for any libelous speech you may have uttered.
Moreover, the Internet is the greatest and most democratic medium for free expression available to us. The ability to use a pseudonym has been an American value since the Federalist Papers were penned under the name Publius. Much will be lost if the powerful companies that moderate most online discourse eradicate the ability to engage in anonymous speech.
Of the letters that were published, I found myself particularly moved by those from people who comment frequently online, and yet say they would not feel comfortable doing so if they were required to use their real names in all cases.
http://catherinecrump.blogspot.com/2011/11/sunday-dialog-on-anonymity-and.html#comment-form
Posting on the internet is both a personal matter as well as a candid example of what you are able to acheive with some sense of alter ego anonymity. For political commentary, it is your voice rather than your pen that is important.
I enjoy blogging on many sites that have a political nature and by using a screenname, I enjoy that I can build a reputation and a consideration and yet no family identification or other personal matter is considered in my sharing of discussion and writing.
It is important that we do not assign a manditory identity on every thing that we do online. Of couse, I am absolutely sure that there will be no 1984 moment of big brother that takes over internet rights today. It would be very hard to change the direction that the Internet has existed since its inception as far as commentary in some venues is tasted.
From the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/opinion/sunday/sunday-dialogue-anonymity-and-incivility-on-the-internet.html?ref=opinion
Sunday Dialogue: Anonymity and Incivility on the Internet
The Letter
To the Editor:
Facebook has 800 million users who are required to use their real names (“Naming Names: Rushdie Wins Facebook Fight,” front page, Nov. 15), and, as a result, are identified with and accountable for what they post. It is time to consider Facebook’s real-name policy as an Internet norm because online identification demonstrably leads to accountability and promotes civility.
People who are able to post anonymously (or pseudonymously) are far more likely to say awful things, sometimes with awful consequences, such as the suicides of cyberbullied young people. The abuse extends to hate-filled and inflammatory comments appended to the online versions of newspaper articles — comments that hijack legitimate discussions of current events and discourage people from participating.
Anonymity also facilitates the posting of anti-Semitic, racist and homophobic content across the Web.
To be sure, there is value in someone being able to use the Internet without being identified. Online privacy is a major issue today. And in the United States, we have had a great tradition of anonymous political speech. Elsewhere, dissidents in oppressive regimes have felt free to speak up precisely because they believe (perhaps erroneously) that they cannot be identified.
This is not a matter for government, given the strictures of the First Amendment. But it is time for Internet intermediaries voluntarily to consider requiring either the use of real names (or registration with the online service) in circumstances, such as the comments section for news articles, where the benefits of anonymous posting are outweighed by the need for greater online civility.
There is no bright-line test, but Internet sites permitting user-generated postings can make a judgment that in some instances the use of real names benefits society.
CHRISTOPHER WOLF
Washington, Nov. 20, 2011
The writer is an Internet and privacy attorney and leads the Internet Task Force of the Anti-Defamation League.
Readers React
When striking down a law prohibiting anonymous distribution of leaflets, the Supreme Court wrote that anonymity serves “to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation — and their ideas from suppression — at the hand of an intolerant society.”
It’s no secret that some people use anonymity to say vile things about others. But before urging the likes of Facebook and Google to banish such speech, think about the gay person who isn’t in a position to come out in the “real world,” but feels comfortable doing so online. Those who need help with personal problems. Those with political opinions they don’t want their bosses to hear.
Or think about your younger self, and whether you’d want everything you said as a teenager to be permanently linked to your real name.
Ugly insults are just one small part of all the free speech that anonymity makes possible, and it’s not worth closing the door on all that speech to make the world more polite.
CATHERINE CRUMP
New York, Nov. 23, 2011
The writer is a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union.
No comments:
Post a Comment