My first post of the semester questioned the social value of the ability to remain anonymous online. Pointing to the dangers of hate speech, defamation, and copyright violation, some argue that we should have as must anonymity on the world web as we have in the "real world." In other words, by making a statement in class or on the street, I am also making my identity known. It follows that the same result should occur online. Previous to this week's reading, I actually found myself somewhat persuaded by this line of thinking.
However, I have since been converted to the other side. American history in particular has shown that anonymous speech can be extremely important to the democratic process. If we don't provide an avenue for the expression of ideas that may be unpopular, this may result in the "chilling" of speech that the Supreme Court has so disfavored. In other words, it is important to be able to express feelings and viewpoints without fear of social alienation, or other similar repercussions. Recognizing the danger that this lack of accountability poses, we can balance the need for insulated speech against hate speech and defamation by permitting courts to compel identification of parties in limited circumstances.
No comments:
Post a Comment