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

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.

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.

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: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.

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.