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

Yes, without anonymity, perhaps you'd think before you post next time...

chet wrote:

Yes, without anonymity, perhaps you'd think before you post next time...

touche!

The NYTimes wants gov't to "do something" about some supposed "problem?"

I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

The paper doesn't want anybody to do anything but buy their paper. The online columnist who is employed by the paper has his own opinions.

Aghast wrote:

The paper doesn't want anybody to do anything but buy their paper. The online columnist who is employed by the paper has his own opinions.

The NY Times almost never hires people who do not toe its party line. There is a reason it is known as America's Pravda.

Fortunately, the NYT & newspapers in general are rapidly losing readership, revenue, and above all, influence.

"Autonomy resides not in free choice but in choosing wisely," and "society needs not an absence of 'chill,' but an optimal level" (from the article). That sounds like it should be carved on the front of the Bureau of Censorship! "Ensuring an Optimal Level of Chill Since 2011!" (Insert sound of person spitting contemptuously.)

Long Live Free Speech!

I spent 45 seconds doing the research on this topic. "Congress shall make no law..." seems to cover it.

Aghast wrote:

The paper doesn't want anybody to do anything but buy their paper. The online columnist who is employed by the paper has his own opinions.

And do you think limiting other outlets for speech (by for instance, not allowing them to be anonymous) strengthens or weakens the place of a newspaper? A little critical thinking is in order here.

"The practice of withholding the identity of the speaker is strategic, and one purpose of the strategy (this is the second problem with anonymity) is to avoid responsibility and accountability for what one is saying. Anonymity, Martha Nussbaum, a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Chicago observes, allows Internet bloggers 'to create for themselves a shame-free zone in which they can inflict shame on others.' The power of the bloggers, she continues, “depends on their ability to insulate their Internet selves from responsibility in the real world, while ensuring real-world consequences” for those they injure."

From the article. What Fish is addressing is that the internet provides new and never seen before conditions of anonymity--conditions that the founders could not have anticipated.

I haven't really seen any arguments put forth for not addressing those conditions. All anyone has done is attack the source of the argument (irrelevant) or beg the question by simply asserting that speech ought to be free.

I'm not totally convinced by Fish and Nussbaum, but I do think they are making reasonable arguments. Just interested to see how they might be countered.

Mr. Obvious wrote:And do you think limiting other outlets for speech (by for instance, not allowing them to be anonymous) strengthens or weakens the place of a newspaper? A little critical thinking is in order here.

Okay, sure maybe the New York Times agrees with Fish's argument. The fact that the New York Times agrees with his argument does not make it wrong, Mr. Obvious.

Your point to me seems to support Fish's argument. Many people on the left and the right bemoan the death of the traditional media. One of the strengths of traditional media is exactly THAT you can identify the source and therefore reason about its potential biases. The New York Times' biases are up front. This is a GOOD thing for the reader; it helps him or her intelligently criticize and analyze the points made.

I don't see why there would need to be a law about this. Venues that don't want anonymity, such as newspapers, should just require people to post under their real names. Nothing wrong with that, and I'd support it.

Ho Hum wrote:

I don't see why there would need to be a law about this. Venues that don't want anonymity, such as newspapers, should just require people to post under their real names. Nothing wrong with that, and I'd support it.

That's not what is being suggested. What is being suggested is that providers of internet services (like letsrun supporting this message board) be held responsible for the content published on the message board, just as each individual (you and me) are responsible for our speech.

Currently there is a law in place that shields providers from responsibility for the stuff posted on their sites.

to say that their biases are up front is a skewed way of putting it. their stance is up front, and that may or may not be biased.

deleuze wrote:

That's not what is being suggested. What is being suggested is that providers of internet services (like letsrun supporting this message board) be held responsible for the content published on the message board, just as each individual (you and me) are responsible for our speech.

Currently there is a law in place that shields providers from responsibility for the stuff posted on their sites.

Okay, but are we currently held responsible for our own speech? I mean, aren't we free to say whatever we want, anonymously if we prefer?

In my opinion, this is a misunderstanding of the internet as a whole. People have an irresponsible trust placed in other forms of media (TV, Print). They just assume that what they are hearing is true. That is ignorant. People need to realize this. In my opinion, you can still make judgments on a comment or statement when it is anonymous. Basically, if it is anonymous, put little faith in it until you look into it further.

Someone in the comment section of that article makes a good point... Both Common Sense and The Federalist Papers were published anonymously. Our country is founded on the ability to make you opinion heard without the fear of recourse. We don't live in a corporation where we should be held accountable.

Of course it should be. Anonymous speech is part of this country's heritage, going back to the Sons of Liberty and even Ben Franklin signing letters as "Silence Dogood." The same principles apply to the Internet. The speaker, writer, poster, or anything else has a right to privacy and to withhold their identity, should they so choose. The reasons for this are well-known and, as I said, have not changed just because the medium is online.

I don't think anonymity on the Internet is sustainable over the long term.

It's one thing to say "yeah, but anonymous free speech is a valid source of information that doesn't depend on corporate backing like Fox, CNN, or NBC!"

However, there's a whole lot of other stuff that comes with that anonymity. Moving from the annoying-but-tolerable to the morally bankrupt, anonymity produces trolls ranging from the relatively harmless (think of the Mongolian bloodline guy who posts here) to the downright toxic (like degenerates on 4chan who harass people into suicide). Then there are the people who rely on fake email accounts and websites to defraud people out of money; the consequences of which aren't just the people who get screwed, but all the people who get inconvenienced and have time wasted as a result of the security measures to PREVENT getting screwed.

Then there's the whole problem of intellectual property theft, which is carried out through peer2peer programs and torrent downloads. It might be on a relatively small scale now, but as goods get increasingly digital, don't you think it might be a problem if all the sudden intellectual property goes out the window? Even if owners of the IP can take people to court to recoup losses, you have the losses associated with going to court, wasting judicial time on other matters, preoccupying a bunch of lawyers, etc.

The anonymity debate is not just about the New York Times wanting to squeeze out the competition. It's not about the government wanting to keep a populace quiet. Internet anonymity affects both economic and social factors beyond some moron on a blog who thinks Obama/Boehner is the Antichrist/a Nazi.

deleuze wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:And do you think limiting other outlets for speech (by for instance, not allowing them to be anonymous) strengthens or weakens the place of a newspaper? A little critical thinking is in order here.

Okay, sure maybe the New York Times agrees with Fish's argument. The fact that the New York Times agrees with his argument does not make it wrong, Mr. Obvious.

Your point to me seems to support Fish's argument. Many people on the left and the right bemoan the death of the traditional media. One of the strengths of traditional media is exactly THAT you can identify the source and therefore reason about its potential biases. The New York Times' biases are up front. This is a GOOD thing for the reader; it helps him or her intelligently criticize and analyze the points made.

I don't really believe in the concept of "traditional media." Media formats and players have been changing since the times of the founders. Some of the issues are not as different as Mr. Fish would have you believe, however. There is a long and distinguished history of anonymous political leafletting in the early republic. See Dr. Benjamin Rush's publications under the psuedonym "Leonidas" for just one example.

I fully admit that I am a strong free speech advocate and believe that speech is already way too regulated in this country. Further regulations are onerous to me.

I do believe, contrary to Mr. Fish's assertions (maybe they are backed up in the book and articles referenced but they are just naked assertions in his article) that people are able to evaluate anonymous information. I personally give anonymous articles or opinions little weight but even stating that is a bit fuzzy. On this message board I know the real name of a few posters. Many posters I know by their handle but not by their real name because they have a history of posting as that person. Some posters I have no idea. I rank the importance of their opinions according to their established value in their posting history (e.g. there are undoubtedly people out there whose opinion is "Mr. Obvious always posts rubbish" who would rank my opinion very low).

I had this debate with my dad over Christmas. His opinion going into the argument was that no one should be anonymous online. That being said, he rarely goes online.

Much like Curious Runner says above, he reads comments under articles in the newspaper and gives them the same authority as the article. He is like, "Why are people allowed to make statements like this! This is all so biased!"

I say to him, "Dad, you are reading the comment section, relax. I can go on there and claim I have a baby unicorn at home. You can write anything, take it with a grain of salt!"

He didn't understand that you have to look at the various platforms differently. Authority has everything to do with influence. If you are not used to the Social Media platforms, it is hard to follow authority b/c it all looks the same.

People prefer certain places to be anonymous b/c it affects the attitude of the community. Some of you bemoan the anonymous nature of LetsRun, but it has a MAJOR impact on how we communicate with one another.

If you were logged into Linked In and someone began making sexual comments to you, you might get a little disturbed and look into it.

If you are arguing on LetsRun and someone tells you to choke on a cock, you roll your eyes or laugh it off and move on. It affects you differently.

This is fraud, not free speech, this is not what the article is talking about.

This is theft, it is not free speech and not what the article is talking about.

Of course it is about those things. The New York Times would like to preserve its marketplace advantage and is willing to enlist the government and suppress other people's rights for that advantage.