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?
pleaase don't oust me :(
please?
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'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.).
Free speech cannot exist without the protection of anonymity. Without anonymous speech, the fear of reprisal would chill discussion. Keep in mind that the Founding Fathers published many of their seminal documents under pen names, lest they lose their heads to the King.
At the same time, the government has an interest in identifying certain publishers. Libel or slander should not be protected because it is a crime that hurts its victims. The government has to balance the interests of protecting anonymous speech against the rights of victims to seek relief. These factors have to be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to grant government power such as subpoenas to pierce the veil of anonymity.
Here, the posts do not seem to be libel or slander. However, we do not know if any government force was used to identify the blogger. I think that it is perfectly fine if the blogger was careless or was betrayed by a friend she told. But if the politician used his office to investigate or to subpoena the information, I would be bullshit mad.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
"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.
Everyone has a right to face their accusers, american or not, politician or not. If someone chooses the internet as the ground to make accusations or critical comments then they should be ready to take whatever fair response comes from their target on the same grounds (internet). As a politician Doogan has to choose words carefully, he should participate to the point he defends his position and outlines why it's the right position, he should also consider that getting too caught up in an argument only makes him seem childish and not fit for his role. On another note, the alaskans I've met sure dont seem to the types to care if we know who they are or not, if they have something to say they are gonna say it and if we dont like it well thats our problem. LOL!
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.
If there was nothing more important, why would it be in the first amendment, instead of in, say, the original constitution itself?
Because the original constitution was written on the premise that people had every right that the constitution didn't explicitly give government the power to curtail. Note the language there; the constitution grants powers to the government (which otherwise has none), not rights to the people (who otherwise have all of them). It was feared that explicitly enumerating rights might imply that such a list was exhaustive, ruling out any rights not listed.
The Bill of Rights was only added because many states only agreed to ratify the constitution once such a bill of rights was promised to be added. The ninth and tenth amendments were the compromise added to quell the fears of the list being taken as exhaustive (the ninth explicitly stating that the list of people's rights is not exhaustive, and the tenth explicitly stating that the list of the Federal government's powers is exhaustive).
And of the rights people were worried about explicitly enumerating, freedom of speech (and the press, and religion, and assembly, all bundled together) was priority #1.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
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).