The Dangers Of Protecting Free Speech

endisnigh writes: "Stephen K. Gielda of www.cotse.com has posted a very interesting article about the trials and tribulations (and attacks, sometimes physical) of running his website, which is mostly dedicated to computer reference and security, but which also gives users the ability to post anonymously to usenet." Considering that litigants can have content pulled (and cause accounts to be yanked) under the DMCA, that organizations can harrass individuals for public opposition, and that anonymity is increasingly hard to find in general, it's sobering to see how much trouble is involved in attempting to provide what Gielda calls "anonymity with accountability."

Comments

Have you seen POSTNET?

[Anonymous Coward]

POSTNET is a network service like the USENET with the difference that posters keep their posts and know the locations of the replies. In postnet you are the moderator and administrator of the replies to your posts. So its spam free (spammers too keep their posts) and posts are really owned by their authors. Nobody can deny access to postnet, and posts can be modified *after* submission (but that can be checked because the parent has the CRC).

On the other hand, all posts may not be available all of the time if a poster is off-line. And people are responsible for their backups.

It is still BETA and experimental, but usable nontheless. Check it out at here and help in its development.

Usually the problem with anonymity is spamming. postnet seems to solve that.

Thanks

Ridiculous!

[Loundry]

BTW, fuck privacy - you don't need it if you ain't guilty.

And what happens when someone in power decides you are guilty -- except that you are innocent? Are you going to say that people in government won't abuse their power? How many Russians died under the rule of Stalin? (Answer: 100 million)

Privacy is protection from tyranny. Your attitude is indicative of the belief that powerful governments are the source of compassion and never do wrong. Unfortunately, history is not on your side.

Reason and Evidence.

Governments, Corporations, Ordinary People

[Badgerman]

The webmaster in question states "ordinary people" are the problem, not governments or coprorations. This may seem a surprise to some.

However, it shouldn't be - because be they ordinary people, government people, or corporate people, the operative word is *people*. The greedy, the oppressive, the self-rigtheous are people too, and they can be found anywhere and their behavior is always the same. Some just have the tools or position to make their pathology into policy.

The oppressor can exist at any level of society. It's up to those of us who don't like the oppressor to not let him gain power - and even more important, to not become like him in the process.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

People have issues

[joq]

Isn't it sad that people can't come to reasonable conclusions in life. You know one thing that has always pissed me off was racism online, and although I despise it, I don't feel some site should be blacklisted, attacked, even put down, because they should have the same kind of rights as I do. When it comes to legalities however, lines have to be drawn, hopefully people can gain a sense of understanding of life, and grow up, before the better sites are gone, and they'll have no one to blame but themselves.

But I'm battle scarred and shell shocked. It hasn't been an easy fight. Those against us are not the governments, they are not the corporations, they are not the legal system. They are individuals self-righteous in their views. They are the very people who's freedom of speech we are trying to protect. They have a right to be heard. But at the same time they work hard to squelch any opposing opinions or speech, those others also have a right to be heard. If they succeed, they will only have given away their own freedom.

This is a bit puzzling to me:

They have one goal, shut us down or get me to shut it down because we shield someone they want to attack. All because that person said something unpopular or disagreed with their views.

What happens to anonyminity in a tight situation. Let's say a woman was raped and would like to get some counseling online, but is terrified to post her name. Why should she have to when sites like this allow for anonyminity. Should she have to feel slighted because some moronic script kiddie has too much time on their hands? Suppose someone wanted to report some form of corruption, but was afraid of the aftermath should their identity be revealed, then what.

Certainly it is very sad to see some assholes abusing the site, maybe for his own sanity, and protection, he should make everyone register with an ISP email address before allowing them to post anonymously. That would probably cut down some attacks. He could clarify that no information will be posted, sold, etc., and this is solely for theirs, and his protection

Should Free Speech Be Free?

[tenzig_112]

Everyone seems to want anonymity for themselves and public accountability for everyone else. We want free speech with no personal cost- free speech for free.

Saying something unpopular is protected by the Constitution, death threats are not. It really isn't all that complicated from the outside.

Personally, I'd be thrilled if I got enough traffic to warrant the occasional death threat.

The source of the problem

[Foggy Tristan]

It's interesting to not that Mr. Gielda doesn't cite corporations or the US Government as the biggest problem, but instead cites ordinary people who for one reason or another can't accept the fact the people should be free to say and think what they want.

I'd hate to think that a service like this which helps give a voice to people in countries where freedom of speech doesn't exist could be destroyed by people with thin skins.

Hopefully one day we'll actually show enough responsibility to deserve the rights we have, but I'm not holding my breath.

Re:Contradiction?

[American AC in Paris]

Isn't the whole point of being anonymous to decrease you accountability?

If you're looking to avoid accountability for your actions and statements, yes.

Of course, Mr. Gielda's unenviable position is to protect and maintain the right to anonymity in the face of individuals who use anonymity to threaten to murder the children and spouses of their enemies; who use anonymity to try and crack and DoS the servers of their enemies; who use anonymity to intimidate, slur, slander, spoof, and defame their enemies; who use anonymity as a weapon of intolerance and cowardice instead of as a voice for the oppressed, small, and afraid.

If it weren't for the tireless efforts of individuals like Mr. Gielda, I assure you that our valuable right to anonymous speech would be heavily curtailed today. Without dedicated individuals fighting an endless battle against those who wish only to take anonymity and turn it into immunity from reproach, governments would quickly step in and put an end to the "menace of anonymous attacks," as well as all anonymity online.

Anonymity is the shield that protects those who would be unjustly harmed or persecuted for their actions. There are few greater signs of cowardice and selfishness than one who uses anonymity to evade accountability for their own unjust actions.

Contradiction?

[Blue Aardvark House]

it's sobering to see how much trouble is involved in attempting to provide what Gielda calls "anonymity with accountability"

Isn't the whole point of being anonymous to decrease you accountability? Using software to mask your IP, or even simply posting anonymously on here are both methods of decreasing accountability.

It's no small wonder why Mr. Gielda's job is so difficult.

Americans and freedom (of speech)

[buglord]

As a German, I just can't help but wonder about Americans. It seems that the land of the free doesn't know its own rights and continually tolerates breaches of constitutional law.

Not only that, they allow laws to be enforced which are krassly against the constitution. Of course, there will always be a small minority which will profit from these laws.

But remember: Freedom goes as far as the freedom of others is not endangered.

American Free Speech Law

[Thomas M Hughes]

Here are some important US Court Cases involving Speech, incase you want to read up on this stuff more than just slashdot editorials and newspaper articles.

Schenk v United States (249 U.S. 47, 39 S.Ct. 247, 63 L.Ed 470) - Debut of Clear and Present Danger Test

Gitlow v New York (268 U.S. 652, 45 S.Ct. 625, 69 L.Ed. 1138) - Overthrow of Government Speech protected

Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc. (940 F.Supp. 836 (D.Md. 1996) - A district court case, that allows for people who publish material advocating criminal activity to be sued for aiding and abetting, never made it to the US Supreme Court.

Forsyth County, Georgia v. Nationalist Movement (Lost my notes on this) - Discusses the Heckler's Veto.

Edwards v. South carolina (327 U.S. 229, 83 S.Ct 680) - Time, Place and Manner restrictions. Discussion of what constitutes a Public Forum.

Adderly v. Florida (385 U.S. 39, 87 S.Ct. 242, 17 L.Ed. 2d 149) - More Time, Place, and Manner. In this case, Prisons aren't a traditional Public Forum.

International Society for Krishna Conciousness, Inc. v Lee (505 U.S. 672, 112 S.Ct. 2701) - Has to do with leafletting at airports. More forum stuff.

Madsen v. Women's Health Center Inc. (512 U.S. 753, 114 S.Ct. 2516, 129 L.Ed.2d 593) - Limiting of speech around abortion clinics.

Cohen v. California (403 U.S. 15, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284) - "Fuck the Draft" case.

That's all I feel like posting right now...maybe later I'll go into the Symbolic speech stuff, and publisher rights, etc. Use this for a good starting point if you really like this stuff.

---

the hallmark of a new era

[Yellow Brick Choad]

we can no longer achieve anonymity. there's cameras pointed at us; authentication is the new killer app; we can't even post to Usenet anymore without leaving a trail for the fundamentally-evil DMCA lawyers to trace. Napster's dead and gone. OpenBSD has a local root hole. The MPAA is breathing down our necks. the power grids are dimming.

is anyone in a position of authority going to save us?? are you waiting around?