If you are a regular reader here, you may know that I live
in a Massachusetts town that could be hosting an Indian Casino
someday. As I'm sure you can imagine, feelings run high on
this subject: most townspeople either want the casino or don't
care either way, but there is a loud minority who sees it
as dangerous and destructive (I'm on the "pro-casino" side,
if it matters to you).

Because of the high running emotions, there have been strident
letters to local newspapers and many, many blog and message board
postings on both sides of the issue. Some of these postings from
the "anti's" have crossed the line and might be considered libelous
- some have even been interpreted as threats. It's been pretty
nasty..

Because of this, some folks on the "pro" side have taken up
the issue of Internet anonymity (the postings mentioned have
been anonymous). They want to form a group to push for
legislation to prevent anonymity on the Internet.

I understand their frustration. Anonymous attacks on a person's reputation
and business can be very disturbing. Nonetheless, legislation would
be a very bad idea.

Aside from the fact that the U.S.
Supreme Court has consistently protected anonymity as necessary
in a free society, the technological challenges would make this
impossible to enforce. Even weak efforts at cloaking that could
be penetrated would require considerable effort, and that would mean
that law enforcement would be unlikely to devote resources to it
except in extreme cases. So in addition to being philosophically
opposed, I think these laws would be impractical.

Free speech CAN be unpleasant.. that's really the point of it, isn't it? We don't need free speech to tell George Bush he's doing a wonderful job - we need it to do exactly the opposite.

If people had to prove their identity before posting anything, what
would corporate or government whistle-blowers do? They'd have
to keep their mouths shut - that's why we don't want this sort
of law.

As for supposed damage to reputations, I think it's overblown. We all know the phrase "Consider the source" - anonymous sources are always heavily discounted. But even if some fraction of readers do believe the libel, I still think that protecting free speech is more important than any damage caused.

By the way, all ISP's will fight this tooth and nail also, although for more selfish reasons. Their influence on legislators would be tremendous. The ACLU will oppose, and I expect most Republican conservatives will also. You'd have an uphill battle all the way (and almost certainly get struck down by the Supreme Court if you got that far).

So, I'm against this on technical, philosophical and practical grounds. I won't support any efforts toward legislation and in fact will actively oppose such.

A good write-up on the history of law in this are is at PRESERVING ANONYMITY ON THE INTERNET. I really recommend reading that if you are still thinking such laws are
justified.

| << Home | 3:50 PM | Technorati | Ping