Can Outing an Anonymous Blogger be Justified?

netbuzz writes "Absolutely, depending on the circumstances, yet a Florida newspaper's attempt to unmask 'a political group hiding behind the name of a fictitious person' has sparked outrage in some circles. Part of the reason for that outrage is that the paper posted to its Web site a surveillance video of the blogger visiting its advertising department, a tactic the editor says he now regrets. What's really at issue here is the right to publish anonymously vs. the right to remain anonymous. The former exists, the latter does not."

Comments

Does not, eh?

[Qzukk]

What's really at issue here is the right to publish anonymously vs. the right to remain anonymous. The former exists, the latter does not.

Is that like how the Constitution provides specific grounds for revoking habeas corpus, but it's OK if the government ignores it because you don't have the right in the first place?

How can one claim that someone has the right to "publish anonymously" if a person cannot be anonymous?

Re:Does not, eh?

[John Hasler]

> Is that like how the Constitution provides specific grounds for revoking habeas corpus,
> but it's OK if the government ignores it because you don't have the right in the first
> place?

No. Aside from the fact that you do have the right to habeas corpus, this has nothing to do with the government at all.

> How can one claim that someone has the right to "publish anonymously" if a person cannot
> be anonymous?

You have the right to "publish anonymously". You have the right to be anonymous. However, no one is obligated to help you be anonymous. It's up to you to keep your identity secret. If you screw up and your secret gets out, tough.

I wouldn't do business with a paper that publishes surveillance videos of its customers, though.

Re:Does not, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

And they're not required to be!

* Ninth Amendment - Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
        The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Re:Does not, eh?

[FutureDomain]

The Constitution protects the "Freedom of the Press", but not the "Freedom of Anonymity of the Press". There are steps you can take if you want to remain anonymous, but no laws preventing someone from outing a blogger who doesn't keep his identity a well-kept secret.

Re:Does not, eh?

[k_187]

No, I disagree. The constitution does not give us our rights. We, as humans, have natural rights endowed from wherever it is that we came from. The listing of specific rights in the Bill of Rights and elsewhere in the Constitution does not limit our natural rights to what is listed. Remember, the Bill of Rights was added because some states were not willing to sign on without explicit enumeration of some of those natural rights. Originally, Madison didn't believe the Bill of Rights necessary. Thus, the question really isn't "does the constitution grant us these rights?", but "is this a right that already existed, but has not yet been enumerated?"

Re:Does not, eh?

[Gorobei]

That is not what the ninth amendment says, nor does it reflect the intent of the writers.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Pretty simple: sounds like unnamed rights are not to denied or weakened because other rights were explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.

Lets see if that was the intent of the writers. Madison:

It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

Hmm, he agrees with the orignal poster, not you.

Hamilton?

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

Wow, he agrees with the original poster too.

Re:Does not, eh?

[kclittle]

You have a right to obey causality. You have a right to obey gravity. You have a right to keep your velocity under the speed of light at all times. You have a right to conserve energy/mass.

These and their like are the only "natural" rights "endowed" upon you by the universe -- in fact, they are *forced* upon you.

Any other supposed rights (freedom of speech, freedom to vote, freedom to chase girls, a.k.a. freedom to pursue happiness) are fictions created by the mind of man as he negotiates his way in the company of other humans.

Now, I certainly enjoy having these rights (especially the one about chasing girls), but I'm under no illusion that they exist in nature external to homo sap.

Re:Does not, eh?

[Dun Malg]

Non sequiter. What you quote means that other rights retained by the people cannot be trampled on inadvertently by the rights enumerated. In other words, you can't ues your right to bear arms to take my right to life (except in self defense).

Good try though. No, you're an idiot. If you actually knew anything about the history of the bill of rights, you'd know that the 9th was a concession to Hamilton and others, who believed that a bill of rights was unwise:

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" -Hamilton, Alexander. The Federalist Papers, #84. "On opposition to a Bill of Rights."

The 9th (and 10th, for that matter) was included to address Hamilton's specific issues. But let us read the 9th amendment itself, and deduce its meaning based on what it actually says:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

See, I don't know where you get the hare-brained idea that the 9th has something to do with enumerated rights trumping one another. It very fucking clearly says what it means. Allow me to paraphrase:

"The fact that we chose to write down a Top Ten List of rights does not in any way imply that the people do not retain a multitude of other rights"

I'd sure love to see you cite a source for your laughable interpretation of the 9th Amendment. The 9th has been routinely ignored by many, but no sane person has ever claimed it meant other than what it says.

Re:Does not, eh?

[Oonushi]

You have the ability to say "No" (or to silently resists if you happen to be mute) to anyone who tries to deny you those rights that you claim are "created in the mind of man". The Constitution and the Bill of Rights simply tell the government where they do and don't have authority over its citizens, who in turn agree to submit themselves to that authority.

Your ability to resist imposed authority is as natural as the law of gravity, therefore the only time your rights don't naturally exist, is when you don't defend them.

Re:Does not, eh?

[penix1]

I'd sure love to see you cite a source for your laughable interpretation of the 9th Amendment. The 9th has been routinely ignored by many, but no sane person has ever claimed it meant other than what it says.

There is a source for that interpretation. The sad fact is it comes from the lead attorney for the United States.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/19/gonzales-habea s/

Of course, it isn't correct but shows that the man should never have been confirmed.

B.

Re:Does not, eh?

[osu-neko]

What evidence or reasoning supports this?

The framers of the constitution believed that this was a "self-evident" fact -- something that would be understood to be true by any reasonable person upon considered reflection, requiring no evidence beyond that.

Now, that's a rather controversial idea. But, whether we accept the existence of self-evident facts or not, it remains true that the U.S. Constitution was written by people who specifically did believe that rights were not granted by government. Rather, that rights are inherent in persons by their very nature. A government can, in this view, protect your rights, ignore your rights, or even infringe upon your rights. But it can't possibly grant you any rights nor remove any rights from you, since that's not something within the power of government. Government is just a collection of people, with no ability to make fundamental changes to human nature by fiat. To assume otherwise is to assume collections of people are somehow able to wield god-like powers simply by virtue of acting collectively, and that's absurd.

So, whether one accepts this premise or not, one needs to read the Constitution with the understand that it was written with this point of view in mind, and needs to be interpreted accordingly.

Isn't their take bass-ackwards?

[siglercm]

What's really at issue here is the right to publish anonymously vs. the right to remain anonymous. The former exists, the latter does not. It seems to me that their conclusion is, logically, the wrong way around. IMHO, we all have the right to remain anonymous. However, if we want to publish we may give up that right. Publishing is totally different from being an anonymous source of information, quoted in a publication.

Or am I off my rocker?

Can Outing an Anonymous Blogger be Justified?

[toupsie]

Absolutely. Journalism should not be the art of protecting secrets. The first amendment right to a free press does not have a caveat that states that people with hidden agendas are protected from exposure. As long as this is not a government mandated revelation of secrecy of a citizen, there is no issue at hand. The press has a right and I feel a duty to expose all that want to be a part of the public debate both for and against what I personally believe. The only reason the editor feels that this was a bad choice is that he doesn't have the requisite reproductive organs to stand up for what they did which was good reporting. There is no right to anonymity when to start to engage in the public debate. If you can maintain it, that is through your own efforts and not through some Constitutional mechanism.

Newspapers' Job is to Expose

[Doc Ruby]

What makes anonymity sacrosanct? Someone does something to be anonymous, their perogative. If someone else does something to expose their identity, that's their perogative, too. If what they do to expose them isn't itself wrong, then they haven't done anything wrong. If they use public info (eg. cameras recording public appearances) and deduction, there's not wrong. The exposed anonymous might not like it, but there's no intrinsic, universal right to anonymity just because they want it. And in fact exposing hidden players in public acts is the primary responsibility of newspapers and other periodical publishers.

I wish there were a lot more outrage about newspapers keeping some people anonymous. Anonymous sources used to spin news, lie to damage coverage and public knowledge. When the source isn't actually anonymous at all, to the reporter (or their editors), but is anonymized by the newspaper, creating more ignorance rather than more knowledge. Especially when that anonymity makes unaccountable some people who are reliably wrong, lying, or just predictably spinning.

Newspapers have a glorious future working to expose trolls in our new mediasphere full of cheap and easy cover. We need more exposure, and more support for it.

Re:ya

[WED Fan]

Nothing what they did was illegal.

There is lot that is not illegal. But, the paper's ethics must be called into question. Aside from threats to national security made in a blog, or confession to a felony in a blog, I'm hard pressed to see why outing someone who has chosen to write pseudonymously would be considered ethical.

Further, any blogger (any internet user, and in particular any Slashdot user) should know that online anonymity is impossible. The best take their real names and run with it. The worst stand behind a glass wall and wonder how people figure out who they really are.

Without the ability to publish, blog, speak anonymously, many of the world's tyrannical governments would not have been challenged, taken down, or seceded from. We, the U.S., did it to King George III and much of the public was influenced to support the effort, in part, through the publishing of anonymous, or pseudonymous tracts.

Yes, there are those who tried to uncover the writers, publishers, and distributors. But, in the end, whose interests do they serve?

I will put this forward, a newspaper that denies another's freedom to speak politically under a cloak of anonymity, should lose its right to exist. In other words, they protect the rights of others so their right is protected.