Stanley Fish: internet anonymity should not be protected as free speech

Those things, in the context I've mentioned them, are also inseparable from Internet anonymity. There are other issues involved in Internet anonymity beyond free speech. Personally, I think people should be held accountable for what they say.

When Common Sense was published, there WAS no free speech in America. Today, obviously, there is. If there's something you have to say that you won't put your name to, maybe that's a decent argument for not saying it.

Buttsniffer wrote:

However, in the time you reference, free speech and publication was limited to a much smaller, more educated audience, who, even in its dissenting nature and relative anonymnity, still was confined to a group who adhered to certain standards. With the proliferation of the ability to write and the ability to publish thought freely (through technology) the self-imposed standards members of the select group who would have previously led them to bite their tongues are no longer in play. In short, the entire spectrum of thought that can now be made public is nothing like the sampling that writing--yes, even the most anti-establishment thoughts--provided back in the day. We're talking apples and oranges. Actually, rancid, rotting oranges.

Wow, this is a great argument. Now that the people have access to reading, writing and publication we shall have to restrict their ability to use it. Who gets to decide if I am educated/civil enough to publish anonymously like the founders or not? Who decides if you are?

Again, we are not nearly so different from the early years of the republic as you would like to think. You may want to research the penny-presses of the early 19th century and the reaction to the political elite to those forms of media.

craigmac4h wrote:

Those things, in the context I've mentioned them, are also inseparable from Internet anonymity. There are other issues involved in Internet anonymity beyond free speech. Personally, I think people should be held accountable for what they say.

When Common Sense was published, there WAS no free speech in America. Today, obviously, there is. If there's something you have to say that you won't put your name to, maybe that's a decent argument for not saying it.

Theft and fraud are not constitutionally protected activities. Free speech is. Courts may already issue warrants unmasking people engaged in criminal activity (and they do so regularly). The internet has given criminals greater ability to hide their identity in some cases or to commit crimes across national borders where they cannot easily be reached. Those issues are not a valid reason to put limitations on political speech.

Buttsniffer wrote:

Let's take letsrun as a microcosmic reflection of what I am discussing. In the past few years, when anonymous posting has increased, would you say the overall value of the board has increased or decreased?

Just for context, I think I have been reading and posting here for about 5-6 years. In that time there has always been a mix of posters--some known by name, some by a regular handle, some unknown. I have no idea whether those proportions have changed or not. I know that since I started posting here that have continuously claimed that the site has gotten worse and all the good posters have stopped posting, etc. I believe that I can evaluate the contributions of posters by their posting history (e.g. I highly value Advocado's Numbers posts because he has said a lot of very interesting, thoughtful things over the years even if I have not always agreed with him, the mongolian hoards guy, not so much). I don't really know how I would measure the overall value of the board except that I still find it worth my while to come here just about every day and read and sometimes post my thoughts. I guess if I no longer found if valuable I would stop posting and maybe (or maybe not) find another venue. I don't believe I need the government to regulate my letsrun.com regardless of if the posting quality in the past 5-6 years has gone up, down, or stayed the same. Do you really want to government regulating your letsrun.com?

You have to look at the words on the constitution. It is not a living document, you can't read into it what you want.

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ... ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS"

TEXT IS NOT SPEECH, AND AN INTERNET FORUM IS NOT THE PRESS.

IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT. Anybody arguing otherwise is arguing for JUDICIAL ACTIVISM(stupid liberals). If the constitution makes no claim on the issue, than we cannot force it to make a claim just because we want it that way. Pass an amendment if you want to change it, but government (not necessarily Federal) has the right to do what it wants concerning internet forums like this.

Alitonian wrote:

You have to look at the words on the constitution. It is not a living document, you can't read into it what you want.

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ... ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS"

TEXT IS NOT SPEECH, AND AN INTERNET FORUM IS NOT THE PRESS.

IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT. Anybody arguing otherwise is arguing for JUDICIAL ACTIVISM(stupid liberals). If the constitution makes no claim on the issue, than we cannot force it to make a claim just because we want it that way. Pass an amendment if you want to change it, but government (not necessarily Federal) has the right to do what it wants concerning internet forums like this.

It most definitely is speech. You are an ignorant shrew.

craigmac4h wrote:

Those things, in the context I've mentioned them, are also inseparable from Internet anonymity.

You're crazy. What you are saying is akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I can walk into a store and shoot people with a gun. Does that mean you should stop my ability to walk into a store?

I think a couple hundred years of Supreme Court decisions invalidate that statement. Judicial activism is a totally meaningless term that was made up by the right to justify things like greed and bigotry. The right has always been "activist" in the courts, and it's intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise.

The Supreme Court has ruled (more than once) that money is speech, and has ruled that making people disclose their identity before giving that money to candidates is an abridgment of speech. Based on that it's perfectly reasonable to assume that text on a web page would be easily assumed to be equivalent of text on a piece of paper.

That said, the Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that it is perfectly legal to pass laws to restrict certain classes of speech. You cannot use speech that can cause undo panic or harm, i.e. yell "FIRE!" in a movie theater. There are laws against libel and slander, which surely restrict types of speech.

It's perfectly reasonable to assume that a law would be found constitutional that would force ISPs to reveal the identities of people engaging in libelous or criminal speech. When looked at critically you're still allowing anyone to say what they want, but you are informing them in advance that a wanton disregard for the truth has consequences.

The yellow journalists of the 18th and 19th centuries were perfectly happy to put their real names on their statements. Anyone with any level of integrity should be willing to do the same either in the printed or electronic form. It lets the reader (listener) judge the source and context together with the information. Those that aren't willing to do that can post all they want about post-nuptial cutoff, proposal farts, etc, but if they post things about someone using drugs, cheating, stealing, etc, that turns out to be false why shouldn't that harmed person have some reasonable expectation of consequences for the poster?

Mr. Obvious wrote:

I know that since I started posting here that have continuously claimed that the site has gotten worse and all the good posters have stopped posting, etc.

This board went downhill when you stopped asking for pics.

When the hell did you become a bloviating old toad?

Mr. Obvious wrote:

I know that since I started posting here that have continuously claimed that the site has gotten worse and all the good posters have stopped posting, etc.

People say that, but I would bet all my money that UMV numbers have skyrocketed.

Lead Singer wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

I know that since I started posting here that have continuously claimed that the site has gotten worse and all the good posters have stopped posting, etc.

People say that, but I would bet all my money that UMV numbers have skyrocketed.

I have no idea but it makes my point. For some people the value may have increased, for others it may have declined. No reason to regulate the postings here as a result.

giving you a PIC bitch wrote:

This board went downhill when you stopped asking for pics.

When the hell did you become a bloviating old toad?

I stopped because the schtick had gotten old. Also, I was trusting people like you to now ask for Pics on any thread that mentions anybody's girlfriend, sister, or mom. You are the future, my son.

giving you a PIC bitch wrote:

This board went downhill when you stopped asking for pics.

When the hell did you become a bloviating old toad?

There was also that time where the woman actually did provide pics (she had lost a lot of weight and was justifiably proud of herself). I'm pretty sure Mr Obvious never recovered from the shock.

Mr. Obvious wrote:I don't believe I need the government to regulate my letsrun.com regardless of if the posting quality in the past 5-6 years has gone up, down, or stayed the same. Do you really want to government regulating your letsrun.com?

Mr. Obvious--you've made a lot of good points, but I wish you'd quit saying this. No one in the original linked posting nor on this thread is advocating government regulation of speech on this site or on any other site.

The question at hand is only who is responsible for anonymous speech? Part of the reason speech has been free is because it is thought to be self-corrective in a certain sense. You say something idiotic or hateful, and reasonable people will condemn you for it.

However, in the anonymous online world, this self-correction cycle is messed up a bit, since the consequences of hateful speech that would be negative in the real world: ostracism, what have you, are actually positive in this world. You get a lot of reaction. Your threads stir up more offense, etc. You've seen the racist threads on here, how through their very inflammatory nature bring a kick to the people who post the crap on them.

So, the idea is, essentially, to say to folks look you can have anonymous posting on your site, but just know that you will be held responsible for what the posters say on there in a court of law. This is a far cry from "government regulation"--it's not like there are going to be State Moderators deleting thread on letsrun. No one would be for that, and such a situation would obviously be detrimental to democracy.

deleuze wrote:

You've seen the racist threads on here, how through their very inflammatory nature bring a kick to the people who post the crap on them.

What is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with that, seriously.

I don't think I am deflecting and am perfectly willing to engage in give and take and even to admit when I am wrong. I believe I made some fair points.

Value is very subjective. I come here because I am a fan of high level running. I also come because I am a runner and enjoy learning about what other people are doing in training. I also come for the entertainment value of trolls and because I enjoys engaging in discourse like in this thread. These things all have some value to me.

Increasing or decreasing is difficult to measure. It is certainly not based on one person (or even several) subjective opinion. I miss that Jack Daniels does not post on here any more. That is a loss and perhaps one things people might refer to when they say the quality of the board is declining. On the other hand, I've heard people say that the board took a big hit when Bill Eamick stopped posting (or got banned or whatever). I've read a few of his old threads (he was before my time) and they didn't do much of anything for me. When I joined people already said that all the knowledgeable posters had stopped, but I've seen an awful lot of knowledgeable, well known people post here and gleaned an awful lot of insights from those postings. Nobby comes here less than he used to because people posted all sorts of nonesense. HRE still comes here a lot and I have learned a lot about Lydiard training from him. I enjoyed the contributions of Jim Spivey to the "success on low mileage" thread--I don't think he has ever been a "regular" contributor but I enjoyed it when he did participate.

There are boards out there on running that do have at least registered user names. I've looked at quite a few of them and participated in some (think coolrunning, runnersworld, runningtimes, etc). They offer perhaps different value. I am more likely to find people at my own level of running on some of them. I am much less likely to read about high level running there and much much less likely to hear first hand accounts from knowledgeable world class runners and coaches.

In summation, I think everybody has to decide for himself whether this board offers value or not and it what way it offers value. The fact that it allows anonymous, non-registered postings certainly affects its character, in some ways good and in some ways bad. Since the board has always been that way I do not think the anonymity has played a role in the incrase, decrease, or sameness of the value.

I don't think anybody's opinion of the perceived value of the postings here (and of anonymity's role in that changing value) is a good argument for government regulation.

Running Girl with Boobs wrote:What is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with that, seriously.

Hmmm. Well, they are racist for one. But I see where you are going, and this is what I was trying to say in my initial post. I like the "id" character of letsrun. I like the fact that the racism of white America is out in the open, not hidden through anonymity. It reminds me that it is still a problem.

I don't think anyone could say that those threads are hate speech or that anyone should be found guilty of anything in a court of law that shows up on here--maybe the mods do a good job of getting that sort of stuff off.

But on the chance that something like that does show up. The kind of speech that is libelous or slanderous or what have you, the question is who should be held responsible? Nobody?

deleuze wrote:

Hmmm. Well, they are racist for one. But I see where you are going, and this is what I was trying to say in my initial post. I like the "id" character of letsrun. I like the fact that the racism of white America is out in the open, not hidden through anonymity. It reminds me that it is still a problem.

I don't think anyone could say that those threads are hate speech or that anyone should be found guilty of anything in a court of law that shows up on here--maybe the mods do a good job of getting that sort of stuff off.

But on the chance that something like that does show up. The kind of speech that is libelous or slanderous or what have you, the question is who should be held responsible? Nobody?

Listen, I agree that it is racist and distasteful, but are you really going to say that it should be controlled?

What if I said that you were no longer allowed to say something bad about the President b/c it was unpatriotic?

Sure racism is a problem, it always will be a problem, and not just with white people.

As other people have posted on here, you need to look into things for yourself. If you read that Jeremy Warner was caught having sex with a dog on the anonymous LetsRun boards, would you really believe it? I hope not.

People are allowed to say what they want to say. What you are advocating seems to make perfect sense, but can be grossly corrupted. There is a reason we have amendments protecting free speech.

That is a fair point, although as I have said I am a very strong free speech protector. I am also suspicious of government involvment in markets, including the marketplace of ideas.

This is a private marketplace of ideas--Letsrun.com. If they see the racist, distasteful threads being posted here, they are free to take them down and ban users by username and IP address. They do that from time to time. They also, in at least one case, identified that somebody was posting a lot of those threads from some college in Iowa and notified the school. I am more than Okay with that, and that person may have faced very serious real life consequences. I think we are all a lot of anonymous than we would like to think and that there are indeed potential real world consequences to what we say on here. Yup, there are some positive feedback mechanisms in trolling such as lots of people responding to your thread but also some negative ones such as a lot of people thinking you are an idiot. In that way it doesn't seem to me that the internet is really all that different than real life. People who tell racists jokes in real life also get both positive and negative feedback.

I think generally the "problems" referred to are way, way overblown. Yup, there is some idiot on here that keeps posting that everybody (Tim Lincecum, Cliff Lee, Armstong, Solinsky, etc.) is on PEDS. Potentially libelous, I guess, but I don't think anybody takes anonymous posters like him seriously. Other posters post things about performance curves and more nuanced arguments about certain people using PEDS (e.g. lots of poeple suspected Rashid Ramzi, and it eventually turned out that he did it). I don't consider any of those arguments as "proof" per se, but I do evaluate them based on the merits of the argument presented and the posting history of the person who writes it (if known).

I am not OK with holding the Brojos responsible for the content of my speech, or your speech on this website. They are not responsible. I am. You are. Holding the Brojo's responsible seems like holding the owner of a printing press responsible for liable, rather then the author of a work.