Should Online Commenters Be Allowed Anonymity?
More and more courts are allowing the unmasking of the identity of online writers and commenters in various kinds of legal cases, including defamation. Free speech violation, or holding people accountable?
I can think of no reason why people should be able to hide behind phony names and take pot shots at other people. I know that the local newspaper and others allow it, probably because they do not have the resources to check and make sure the names they get from commenters are legitimate. That is their choice, but I see no reason why that anonymity should be protected.
In my view, thrusting your opinions out there without saying who you are is pretty chicken. If you say it, be proud of it and identify yourself. If you are not willing to identify yourself, you ought to examine why you want to say something that you are not proud of.
I know, I know. The hiders will say they are afraid of retaliation or some other lame excuse. The men who signed the Declaration of Independence were committing treason under English law. If the Revolutionary war had not been successful, they were subject to the death penalty. The English had some imaginative and gruesome ways of executing people they considered traitors. Those men signed their real names anyway, because they were proud of what they were doing.
Be proud of what you do. If you are not willing to own it, don't say it. Unless, of course, you really are a chicken.
Dugan Barr has practiced law in Redding since 1967. He has tried more than 200 civil jury cases to verdict. He is married and has five children. The offices of Barr and Mudford, LLP, are at 1824 Court St. in Redding and can be reached at 243-8008.
 |  |
41 Responses »
Leave a Response
Email is the outlet for those who are afraid to put their name to what they write.
I depend on A News Cafe for the "real thing" Stanford Smith
I am holding the entire Redding City Council, City staff, REU and the administration of Turtle Bay responsible for the postings of what is probably one disturbed person who posts under a multitude of screen names.
Some of you know who that poster is. Let the that person know how much you appreciate their "support."
There is bound to be a way to verify. Anonimity seems so cowardly.
Amen, Dugan.
I couldn't face my kids if I didn't stand behind everything that I write.
The world is a much more civilized place when people are accountable for their words. Verifying commenter's identities is daunting and costly - and probably an impossible task, but I give zero credence to words spewed by people who don't have the strength of character to sign their names.
"The local newspaper and others" --- such, um, anewscafe.com?
It's not about freedom of speech. The trolls are looking for freedom from criticism and freedom from consequences. It's a distinction worth noting.
Resources:
Resources:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/aug/20/blog-anonymity
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/
This is one of the reasons I am happy to be out of the newspaper business. Allowing people anonymity in anything related to commentary is dangerous and truly makes their commentaries irrelevant. It has cheapened and damaged the integrity of the medium that allows it. Cowardly people who hide behind this anonymity are to be ignored.
"Cowards, hiders, characterless, chickens and spewers..."
Well said gang!
One of the things I value most about A News Cafe' is the feeling of SAFETY when I take the time to contribute, comment or respond. Believe it or not ANC is like a family to me and my dear ones. It makes me feel connected - and like I have a real sense of belonging to something significant (Unlike the skeletal R-S).
While I (and my kids!) have been and felt attacked in trying to participate in this great community gift called, ANewsCafe, I feel a bit more reluctant to participate at times... I think about Bud Hodges recent, personal attack on me about my comments regarding marijuana use and support of Tom Bosenko, Peter Hansen and Gerald Benito. While I felt temporarily hurt, he at least had the guts and honor to use his real name!
And I think about poor "JJ," who took the time to share (however unpopular to most readers) his/her feelings and negative comparisons about the Redding area. A few good people - using their real names - compassionately stated that while they might not agree with JJ's take, they thought about the opportunity to perhaps welcome JJ to see things that are truly wonderful here. They had the decency to TRY and make a bad situation better.. You know, like in a real family!
It doesn't feel very safe at all when a person slams your feelings or opinions in a hostile, name-calling manner... especially when they are attacking from a dark alleyway of bastardized anonymity.
Thanks Dugan! (You so rock!!)
Alan
Dugan said it well. No wonder he's an attorney.
Patrish
Hear hear!
Interesting - For those of you that don't know, Silence Dogood was a pseudonym used by Benjamin Franklin, a signer and co-author of the Constitution. He used the anonymity of several pseudonyms to put forth controversial ideas (independence, fair trade, etc.). He did this because he didn't want the backlash from the public and government officials (royal appointees).
So, maybe (call me a radical), there is a good use for anonymity. Of course, if you just parrots popular opinion you have no need for it.
Having been the victim of a couple anonymous smear campaigns, I can't find a way to say how important this issue is to a civilized society.
From the victims side, there is no way to refute or rebuke slanderous comments. Once an idea has been born, it's impossible to completely kill. So no way to restore a reputation left in tatters. The slanderer goes on and on, and the damage they do is permanent, because there is always a hint of a question left in the publics mind about the veracity of the tale.
From the commenters side, shows a complete lack of honor and ethics as well as oftentimes, a lack of personal responsibility.
This is a large part of why more people don't run for local offices. It takes a pretty thick skin to ignore it.
Dugan's phrase bears repeating..
"If you are not willing to own it, don’t say it."
I think it's always proper to use your real name when commenting in a public forum. Some do, such as Russel Hunt , Patrica Barrett and Judy Salter.
Dugan Barr, I agree with your stance and think posters, such as RLF should step out from behind his or her's pseudoname.
Alan Phillips, sir, I apologize if I hurt you. You have a well written article, that at some point I disagreed with. Isn't it great that you and I live in a country where we can disagree and not have to use deuling pistols to settle the argument?
Tom King, I remember you as Editor of The Searchlight. What a great job you did.
I hope we hear from you again.
Gee Budd, as far as lies, rumors, 'misguided, insulting and cowardly' comments go, you would be hard pressed to find any other than myself or the Loaves and Fishes ministry that have suffered more. Some comments from even so called "real names."
You can hit the "suggest removal ", on Redding.com, most of the time with very little effect.
And exactly what pseudonames have I been using that most people dont realize is me ?
Very well said Dugan.
As far as being able to write anonymously for whistleblowing and writers like Ben Franklin, thats fine. However they won't need that type of protection for commenting about online articles.
Have a happy Thanksgiving all!
I feel strongly that comment writer identities should be verified in media outlets that call themselves news sources. Dugan's point about the men who dreamed of a nation that had freedom of the press, put their lives, and that of their families at stake for that ideal. With our freedom comes similar responsibility. I posted at length about this subject a few days ago at ReallyRedding, and have had conversations with RS editorial staff. The fact is that they (and A News Cafe) CAN verify identity with Credit Cards, but choose not to do so. Or, they can regulate outrageous comments, screening them before they appear. The sad fact is that flaming controversy drives page views, which drives ad revenue. That leaves open the possibility that corrupt staff itself generates deliberately controversial statements and anonymous character assassination. Some in the community are choosing to simply stop talking to them until they acknowledge the problem that you can't have it both ways, calling yourself a reliable news source, while pandering to, and enabling an anonymous cesspool of pageview driving comments. In our small town, where reputation is everything, few public figures can withstand a character assault of written comments posted at an ostensible authoritative source. Maintaining a true picture of fact has become secondary to commerce, and that's the danger. As A News Cafe grows, I hope it doesn't happen here.
My view: If you want to write anonymously go somewhere else. The record searchlight print edition verifies the names and addresses of those who have their letters to the editor published. It should be no different for the record on-line or this site. What about a double standard. Those that have verified names get a seal of acknowledgment, and those that don't, don't get standing in some appropriate manner.
I must say that many of the comments on Searchlight articles are really trash. Not at all like here where most comments are worth reading, and some are worth laughing about and some make you want to write a comment.
While I generally respect Mr. Barr's opinions, I must say I'm a bit disappointed in this argument. While it is true that many people hide behind their screen names to post hurtful comments, the idea that anonymity is to blame is simply non sequitur. People post insults, both named and anonymous. If the goal is to prevent these postings, then attack the insults and not the correlator of anonymity.
Anonymity is simply a tool and can do just as much good as harm (how many crimes have been solved through anonymous tips?). More to the point of online postings: People, for right or wrong, tend to associate the actions & comments of individuals as representative of the groups to which these people belong (be it business, organization, family, etc). Mr. Barr, being partner in his own firm, has the ability to speak out on controversial issues however he see fits. I'd submit that this isn't a luxury enjoyed by his colleagues in the DA's office.
If you cannot see a significant difference between an anonymous tip to the police about a suspected crime and an anonymous published attack on another person, you really do not understand what you are talking about. Too bad you did not identify yourself to give us all a chance to see what biases or other interest you might have regarding this or any other subject.
My apologies if the abbreviation caused confusion, the G is short for Gore. I've used "JeffG" since anewscafe was the much smaller donigreenberg.wordpress.com site (aside from the occasional Silence Dogood-esque jest, that is). Anyway, it seems you have completely missed my point so here it is more succinctly:
moderate attacks, not anonymity.
I completely disagree with the assertion of the author. If the opinion has merit, it will stand on its own. It matters not who wrote it. Poor Richard comes to mind. I guess Benjamin Franklin was a "chicken", according to Barr's rationale. History would tend to disagree with Barr on that as well.
Even today the "Anonymous" comments continue...
http://blogs.redding.com/jwilson/archives/2009/11/legalizing-pot.html
What other Christian organizations refused the food donations from the marijuana collectives ?
Or is the Record Searchlight only interested in crucifying Redding Loaves and Fishes ? ?
JeffG makes a good point, that the problem is the insults and not the anonymity. At a certain critical mass, though, comment-policing becomes a serious chore, especially for the skeletal news staffs of old and new media players alike.
FWIW, The Washington Post, the L.A. Times, the Sacramento Bee, The New York Times and the Chronicle all allow for anonymous or pseudonymous comments. The Wall St. Journal asks for a name but doesn't verify it. The San Jose Mercury-News suggests you use your name and hometown to increase your credibility, but doesn't seem to require it. Cnn.com? Anonymous. FoxNews.com? Yep. The Huffington Post? Talking Points Memo? I think you're getting the idea.
Everybody hates unmoderated flame wars, and has since the beginning of the Internet. Funny how nobody's yet done anything about it.
But they have. They can be moderated to deny flamers and trolls. It's nothing more than a software switch, and if staff is shorthanded, many boards rely on community minded volunteers to approve comments. Heaven forbid their business should become community minded.
FWIW,The RS is not the Wash Post any more than Redding is DC. Aside from the specious argument that two wrongs make a right, the position of authority enjoyed by the RS and the intimate nature of small town life lent redding.com a different stature and role in the city than those major national news outlet sites. Apples and oranges.
Even if sound thinking and self preservation were to prevail at redding.com, I don't think they can change, any more than they can consider shutting down their presses. They seem incapable.
Gradually, they will cease to be of importance, as new, more useful and credible sources are created to replace them. Such is the nature of things.
I have no doubt that anonymity fuels crass, juvenile behavior on comment boards. I only need look at a website devoted to folks in my line of work to see the difference accountability makes. The site has two forums: in one, people are free to post anonymouslly; on the other, you must register with your name and email address. The difference in behavior between the two boards is striking. One is full of juvenile invective; the other has intelligent, mature discussion, and people often disagree without being disagreeable.
And yet, I think prohibiting anonymity would come at a cost. Mr. Barr is well-known and influential in our community. While he's not immune from retaliation, his profession and standing grant him a measure of protection few of us little people enjoy. And what about people on parole? Forget about it. If someone on parole posted criticism of the police department or D.A.'s office, he or she would invite more unannounced "visits" from law enforcement, and the smallest perceived infraction would result in a return to prison.
I seldom post anonymously, but if I had genuine, compelling dirt on a person in power in our county, I would hesitate to use my name. Why?
Well, most police officers and deputy sheriff's I've known have been good folks. But, as one veteran deputy once told me, it only takes one bad cop or one crooked deputy D.A. to ruin your life. A traffic stop, the planting of a little baggie, and life as you know it is over.
Do I think openly criticizing a person in a position of power would lead to being framed? No. I believe (and hope) it is very unlikely that such a thing could happen in our county. Still, I think it' is more in the realm of possibility than say, winning the lottery, or getting hit by lightning.
I've been known to buy a lottery ticket now and then, and when I see lightning, I go indoors.
I think back a few years and reflect on some advice my father gave me. He was born in 1912. We were raised as atheists and moved to Shasta County in 1989. He warned me at the time not to share my godlessness with the general public. He was actually fearful that my job may be jeopardized. Now as a small business owner I still fear that my livelihood may suffer for that. Well, here it is!
Generally speaking those who post insults must be taken with a grain of salt, those who comment on issues deserve to be heard. If one chooses anonymity they may have reasons we cannot surmise. We still live in a society that excludes some with whom they do not agree.
Whether or not to allow anonymous comments should be left to the discretion of the website operator, and the website operator should assume legal responsibility for all content published. There is no need for any regulation. It is a free speech issue, as regulation of speech, anonymous or otherwise, violates the 1st Amendment.
I make a decent living running a bar and nightclub website that allows anonymous user reviews, though all submissions from users who have not gained my personal trust must first pass through a moderation process in which I manually approve or decline which reviews become publicly available. Reviews containing character assassination and outright maliciousness instead of objective opinion never see the light of day. In fact, reviews containing opinion but little substance ala "This place sucks, I hate it" are not approved either.
I still get the occasional "I demand you remove these comments or a I will sue you for defamation" threat. Those who make those kinds of threats clearly don't understand the difference between opinion and defamation. My usual response is to tell them to screw off and their attorney to go back to law school. I don't even run those things by my own attorney anymore, I prefer to save my retainer for real issues, such as copyright violations and content theft.
I can't say it enough: anonymous comments are ultimately the responsibililty of the website operator and should not be regulated by anyone else other than the website operator.
It is well established that anonymous speech can be protected under the First Amendment.
Anonymous posting is increasingly debated because more and more people are becoming better and better at Internet communication. Rating and reputation sites are more prevalent.
Like it or not, the government is starting to step in. The FTC has proposed that bloggers disclose if they have been paid in connection with products they promote, review or rate.
I founded http://www.Repio.com to provide people with tools to cope with the new world we live in. I hope these tools can be useful to all of you. Please send feedback to us, as Repio's technology is still under development.
Bravo for bringing this issue to the forefront.
Jay Bettinger
CEO, Repio, Inc.
President, Bettinger Law Group, PC
It is well established that people want and need a quik bite whether posting fotos of the trip to Burney Falls, cracking passwords, or flame warring. For a good burger any time, day or night, come to FastBurger. Free wireless internet access. We may steal your credit card number, but hey, we gave you free internet access, didn't we?
Jefferson Hamilton
CEO, FastBurger.org
Well, it's not quite as simple as that. Not everyone wants to step directly into the fray. Privacy deserves respect. We should all be allowed to express our opinions, whether publicly or privately (it's a good thing that voting happens in a booth).
Private web publishers (e.g., newspaper sites) are free to require login (e.g., via Facebook Connect). The solution is there. It's really a publisher choice.
That said, we all tend to naturally discount the credibility of anonymous posts on the web. We are pretty good at recognizing quality. Rants from anonymous haters are recognized as such.
Wrong again. I would not post if my last name was revealed since my opinions might hurt my business and my family. In a town this small, if my car is egged after something happened involving my old boss, I want to preserve some privacy.
Individuals will post stuipd, insulting trash whether or not they are required to use their "real" name.
I left Facebook because I felt putting my first and last name out there, could put myself in danger. Living in an age where Goggle can give ANYONE personal info (on another person) I think people should able to use screen-names if they so choose.
Also, the idea of "dismissing" a persons comment on the sole reason they use a screen-name is moronic.
Oh, I can see this topic opened up a "can of worms". We all have our own opin ions. There are good reasons for not wanting to use ones own name. Even though I don't use my "real" name, I don't stoop to name calling or slanderous remarks -- no matter what. Besides, I have such a common name, the others who have the same first and last name might wonder what's going on, and friends will say, did you really say that?
In this litigious society, anonymity is an important tool. As has been said, many of us have jobs or positions in life where we just cannot - perhaps should not - publicly spout on touchy subjects that we deeply care about.
My posts will always be of such that I would not be ashamed to reveal my identity if push came to shove, but anonymity helps me take the first step to be part of a public discussion.
Like pmarshall, I have no need to bash or sling slander but I do love a good discussion. Being human, I have a point of view that may be clouded, so I do appreciate the chance to clear up misconceptions.
I think this type of forum is more about the ideas & perceptions more than the need to know "who said it". Why exactly does that matter? We can spot the nut cases a mile away and blow past those posts...but the thoughtful, provocative ideas should be examined together.
Let's see. I see words like coward, chicken and spewer. Anyone who cannot participate in a discussion without name calling is, in my opinion, mentally unstable. If I state something that a mentally unstable person disagrees with, and this person knows my name, he can find out where I live as I am a home owner. Anyone who reads the comments on the Record Searchlight can see how clearly mentally unstable some of those people are. I don't want them knowing where I live. If I thought we could have a reasonable, rational discussion without hatred and name calling, I would have no problem posting my real name. Until then, I will continue to be Elle Bough.
If the shoe fits, wear it. A discussion with anonymous people is hard to do and has very limited appeal. It is the ability to hide in the fox hole and fire invective without any possible adverse consequences that makes on line discourse very, very tough. Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and the rest signed their names. If people have to sign their names, they will think about whether they really want to be attached to the statement. Sure, sometimes it will cause the faint of heart to pause, or even pass. But pause is good because it makes you think about whether or not you are saying something important as opposed to just taking a jab at someone. Or at least, it should.
I completely see your point of view. However, what do you do about those people who are so vehemently opposed to you that they would take physical action against you. I'm not afraid to post my real name if I could be guaranteed that someone won't throw poisoned hotdogs over my fence for my dogs to eat. I have, however, changed my mind about posting anonymously. After all, who wants to have a discourse with crazies, anyway. Thank you for your point of view!
I have seen horrible things done to folks who let their views be know. They were done in secret by unknown persons.
I lived on the coast most of my life. I had purchased a home next to a house with a burned porch and front wall. Eventually I began to notice a very old man fooling around in his yard. Slowly I came to know him, and even began to supply water to him through my hose.
He told me that he had been a welder in world war two and helped build ships in SF. He had also done many other ingenious things. His brother was known as a controversial person, and at one time had lived with him. Apparently some of the folks took exception to his liberal views, calling him a communist, and some folks went over at night and started his porch on fire. The John Birch Society was blamed, but no charges were ever filed This happened in the 70s, and in the 80s it was still in horrible shape. Older folks have less money much of the time.
I must say that I have checked stats on Redding. We have a much higher index of Hate Crimes (citidata.com) and also have a lot of problems in that area, homeless issues, ect. I have talked to Patricia and she alluded to the possibility that she feels seriously at risk using her real name. So my vote is with Ben Franklin !
There is a lot of recent controversy regarding this issue. If some of it isn't straightened out, I will be calling the Searchlight on recent problems. I have been asked to keep reasons (excuses) given confidential, so I will give them a chance !
The word is Known. Darn keyboard anyway (;-)
As the one person who has been insulted the most in this community, I hold the R-S responsible for bloggers comments. They are hosting the forum and have full knowledge of the slander statues. Yet, until recently they looked the other way. and there is no point suing a paper which is going broke.