Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Blogger Outed By Politician
Snoskred writes with the story of a blogger who chose to remain pseudonymous, who has been outed by an Alaskan politician in his legislative newsletter. Alaska Rep. Mike Doogan had been writing bizarre emails to people who emailed him, and the Alaskan blogger "Mudflats" was one of those who called him on it. (Mudflats first began getting noticed after blogging about Sarah Palin from a local point of view.) Doogan seems to have developed a particular itch to learn who Mudflats is, and he finally found out, though he got her last name wrong, and named her in his official newsletter. The Huffington Post is one of the many outlets writing about the affair. The blogger happens to be Democrat — as is Doogan — but that is immaterial to the question of the right to anonymity in political speech. Does an American have the right to post political opinion online anonymously? May a government official breach that anonymity absent a compelling state interest?
Does an American have the right to post political opinion online anonymously?
Sure.
May a government official breach that anonymity absent a compelling state interest?
Why yes. Everyone has the right to keep their identity a secret.. but no-one has the right to prevent others from discovering their secrets.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I don't recall ever seeing anything about a RIGHT to anonymity? This isn't healthcare.
You want to blog and take potshots at someone, don't be surprised if they try to find out who you are.
I'm disturbed that an American would feel that they should have to be anonymous to post political speech. There should be no threat of reprisal whatsoever; in fact the politicians should be the ones who are worried about what the electorate thinks of them.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
He discovered her identity fair and square. Would you propose that one must pretend not to know who someone behind a publication is based on some arbitrary set of circumstances. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" and whatnot.
Is not a pre-requisite to freedom of speech. Whether you chose to shout your comments from the gallery or in front of a microphone, the right to express one's opinion -on any subject- should not be subject to persecution by any person. That is why it is the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. To the citizens of the burgeoning republic, there was nothing more important than the right to speak freely and without retribution.
Sig this!
Does an American have the right to post political opinion online anonymously?
Yes. And anywhere else for that matter.
May a government official breach that anonymity absent a compelling state interest?
No. See The Constitutional Amendment #1. Yes, that old thing is still kicking around these days.
The game.
Just exactly who is going to decide what "... a compelling state interest" is?
Let me guess? The same people that will charge you with treason or terrorism?
Yes, I think anonymous speech should be protected... until it become defamation or slander. Both are pretty difficult slopes to tread when the figure being defamed or slandered is a public figure. On another note, a political figure is both public and a part of the government. They have even less right to any privacy regarding their lives than probably anyone else. Despite the allure of any resulting tapes, Pamela Anderson has a right to expect privacy... no matter who she is fucking. A political leader... not so much.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Of course they have 'the right' to protect their secrets - as in this case, their identity. However, do they have a legal leg to stand on in trying to fight somebody who has made that secret public? I'd say they don't.
So, yes, anybody - politician or otherwise - should be perfectly allowed to blow somebody's 'anonymity' if there was no agreement between the two parties to maintain that anonymity (as in some court proceedings, witness protection program, etc. etc.).
The submitter of this story and various people in various internet forums [cough.] seem to be under the impression that this story has something to do with a possible violation of rights, online or otherwise. Even the various blog posts linked to in the summary, however, only detail Alaska State Rep. Mike Doogan's puerile tendency engage in online name-calling, and Nixonesque paranoia and obsession with the press. Doogan didn't obtain any information illegally (indeed, likely and luckily, he lacks the power to do so); he just became obsessed with the identity of blogger "Mudflats," and felt the need to "out" said blogger and complain about how unfair everyone was being in the print and internet media.
In conclusion, this story tells us that Rep. Mike Doogan is a paranoid whiner who thinks that the internet is Serious Business. There is a right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, and a right to freedom of the press, but if anyone thinks that there a right to publish anonymously, even in the face of a breech of said anonymity using public information, that person is the one who lacks an understanding of the first amendment. Indeed, the (obsessive, childish, etc.) State Representative (i.e. The Man) is fully exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech in this case. It would be a dark day indeed if Rep. Mike Doogan needed a state interest, compelling or otherwise, to whine in emails about bloggers being mean to him on the interwebs.
"Outing" the blogger disclosed some of the biases in her accusations.
Dude, we knew more about her biases from what she wrote in her blog than from knowing her real name.
"Mudflats" biases were on worn on her virtual sleeve, not hidden behind her pseudonym.
Congratulations, you've so enshrined the Constitution so as to invite the very tyranny that was fought over two centuries ago. Anonymous speech is crucial to voicing intelligent opinion unfavorable to the powers that be. So much so, that the very people who built the Constitution you cherish dared not publish the Federal Papers under their actual names. Somehow, the entire nation has read the 9th amendment and looked the other way.
Well played, sir.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
I expect most /.ers to disagree with me, but I think it is worth keeping in mind that freedom of speech is not only not the same as a guaranteed right to speak anonymously, but it is actually intended to make anonymity irrelevant - at least when it comes to speaking your opinion about important issues of politicas, faith etc. - by giving legal protection from any persecution from the state. It is a very specific right, not meant to be a cover-all that gives anybody the right to say anything, however acrimonious, or spread rumours and snipe at people from a safe cover.
That aside - I don't know the specifics of this story. To me it seems obvious that if you have some important viewpoints and observations, you have the right to speak out about it in public and should have the courage to show your face - if you hide behind anonymity, you appear less credible, as if you are ashamed of yourself or you know that what you have to say is bullshit.
As far as I am concerned, it may be permissible to allow anonymity in some cases to protect those who might otherwise suffer unjust retaliation - eg. if they are whistleblowers, or particularly vulnerable witnesses in court - but I think it has to be limited to when there is a special need to show extra concern. I don't think this generally apllies to bloggers.
Now, go on, hate me forever and all that.
The question is "do you have a right to anonymity when making political editorials?" That's a different question than "do you have the right to make anonymous political editorials?" The answer to the latter question is "of course". The answer to the former question is "of course not".
Horseshit. The Bill of Rights exists because of anonymous free speech. Also, the Supreme Court has a long history of protecting anonymous free speech. You are entirely wrong in every point you make.
The right to anonymous speech is enshrined in the highest law of the land. Whether or not the statements are hurtful is irrelevant. Your political example is particularly clueless.
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
The parent poster is correct in framing this as a possible abuse of power. It is probably not illegal to reveal someone's identity. It can be illegal to use political power to discover someone's identity.
Your homework assignment (i.e. if you want to debate this without looking like a total idiot) is to prepare an argument against internet anonymity with reference to libel and slander. The links I provided should give you plenty of ammunition. Also, if you dig back through slashdot, there was a recent case in the maryland supreme court (IIRC) involving a fast food franchise trying to subpoena the identities of some critics on the internet, which may or may not have been covered in one of my links. Do note that such an argument is not relevant to the facts of TFA.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
The Constitution is not a list of every right that ever existed or ever will. It's a document detailing what limited rights the people/states have given to the federal government; then to be extra clear, specifically mentions that the feds are not allowed to do certain things (Bill of Rights).
Let me repeat that: It's a list of rights that we give to the federal government, plus some specific restrictions on the feds. Not a list of *our* rights.
The Constitution doesn't give us a right to privacy or anything else - it doesn't grant rights, only recognizes some of them and specifically tells the federal government not to infringe those rights. It also says that not all rights are listed, but they still exist.
We have our rights by being born, both those specifically recognized in the Constitution and those not (like privacy).
When people talk about constitutional rights, they would be more correct to say "constitutionally-recognized rights".
You have the right to pursue these things, yes. They are not provided by the government, nor does current law say it should, so.. we don't.
Whether or not they should be provided by the federal government is debated. If the people want these things, the laws can be changed to support it (including a Constitutional amendment if required).
Do we have the right to vote anonymously when pressed to start a union?