Look... there have been many legal cases over this issue. Let's say you're a public figure. If the circumstances amount to strong evidence that there is actual malice involved (which does happen sometimes), then the injured party can get information subpoenaed in order to find out who said it. Legally, it's all based on reasonable levels of evidence, not just some ability to willy-nilly subpoena anyone you want.
There was a case in the news not long ago, in fact it was mentioned here on Slashdot. (I'm not going to take the time to look it up, though.) After seeing the evidence, the judge ruled that the plaintiff was likely able to show genuine malice, and so agreed to issue a subpoena for information about who the individual was. If the judge had found insufficient evidence of malice, he would not have issued the subpoena.
In this case, though, the standard for breaching anonymity was that the accuser
stated as a matter of fact that the accused had committed a crime. See paragraph 26 of the decision, which is liked to from the story. I think that standard is far too low.
Here's a hypothetical example: the writer says, "I'm doing this because I think you're a low-life hateful/awful/dangerous person." (As opposed to, say, "I have evidence you've actually done something wrong.") Or "I'm doing this because you seduced my wife", etc. So for this example, a personal vendetta of some kind. If the statements are false, and the writer admitted that it was done for personal reasons, or personal gain of some kind, that's generally evidence of malice.
But again the point is: there has to be evidence before a subpoena my be legally issued.
A person who has inside information about nefarious deeds, but who is, because of his position, vulnerable to retaliation, should be able to speak anonymously.
They can. The law allows them to. What the law does not allow, is malicious, defamatory speech. As long as you're telling the truth, there is generally nothing to fear: truth is a near-absolute defense against libel. But if you're lying, and especially you're lying for opinion-based or selfish reasons, you'd better watch out.
That's the way it is. And frankly, that's the way it should be.
As long as you are telling the truth, and can prove it, you have nothing to fear from the law. There are other forms of retaliation, though, such as losing your job or being shunned by your friends. I don't think Deep Throat would have spoken out about Watergate if he could not have been assured of anonymity. By the standard that this court applied, Nixon could have filed an action to seek his accuser's identity, since he was accused of breaking the law.
If an anonymous accuser provides evidence enough to prove that his allegations are truthful without his testimony, then there is no need to unmask him. If he doesn't, he can be ignored.
I think that the cost of being lied about anonymously and not being able to punish the liar, is less than the cost of being unable to accuse a powerful person of having committed a crime while remaining anonymous to avoid retaliation.
Quite the opposite. It was run by every major news outlet. It was dinner table talk at my friends house. It was discussed at work. And in general it has gotten a boat load of coverage for something very unsubstantiated.
I'm not saying everyone in the public agreed. They most certainly did not, and given my observer bias of cynical and skeptical people I hang out with I would say most of them didn't believe the story. But that's not the problem, the problem is that this has gotten lip service AT ALL. If something is unsubstantiated then why would it be run by every major news outlet? Why would there be an hour long session on the topic by talk show radios?
People in general have short memories and it doesn't take long to confuse them. That is exactly why public relations campaigns are so effective. You can ruin someone based on nothing very easily, as anyone who has been accused of stalking children on Facebook can attest to. Your common sense does not protect a reputation from public perception.
I think the cynical and skeptical people you hang out with are more representative of the general public than you credit. The issue is covered by the media because it gets them attention. They don't care about the truth, they care about getting people to listen to their advertisements.
Yes, it is possible to ruin someone with a completely untruthful public relations campaign. However, forbidding anonymous speech doesn't prevent that. Even if it is well known who is telling the lies, and even if he is sued in court for defamation and is convicted, the damaging allegations are still out there, and still causing harm. Indeed, a court case might increase the harm by causing more people to become aware of the lies.
What you're overlooking is that the unmasking is coming after the court has essentially already declared that the speech in question is defamatory (which isn't a protected class of speech). There have been appeals, the anonymous person has sent lawyers to appeal on multiple occasions (which does make one doubt the "it's some random yahoo" hypothesis - Timmy's parents aren't likely to be footing the bills for lawyers to protect his identity). Reading the ruling, it's pretty clear that Mr. X has effectively *had* his day in court, and the judges are basing this ruling on the fact that they believe the posts in questions to be defamatory.
So the system is working pretty much as intended - "Fuboy" (the alias of the person who posted) has had his identity protected through the entire process, and only after substantial judicial review (which includes the judges deciding if the case has merit and a reasonable chance of success - read: it's actually defamation), has authorized revealing the name. Not to mention that at each step, he's had the ability (and has availed himself) of legal representation to attempt to quash the subpoena.
To your root point, I agree that anonymous speech is valuable. But part of that value is that it can't be used as a shield to hide behind when doing actually illegal things.
I overlooked it because, like the typical slashdotter, I hadn't read the opinion until now. Notice in paragraph 26 that the court is concerned about the constitutional right of anonymous speech. Apparently, any statement that can reasonably be construed as accusing someone of committing a crime triggers the loss of anonymity. I don't think that is good enough. Paragraph 26 also hints that other courts apply a stricter standard, so apparently there is not uniformity on this rule. I advocate a much higher standard: no matter what is said, the privilege of anonymity is absolute.
Here is a hypothetical example to illustrate my point. A person using the pseudonym Mrs. Silence Dogood writes a comment on the web site of the New England Courant in response to a story about the Queen of England, calling her a tyrant. Tyranny is, of course, a crime, so this comment accuses a person of a crime. The local representative of the Queen files a rule 224 petition to learn the name of the accuser. The court rules that the statement is defamation and outs Benjamin Franklin.
Why should you be allowed to intentionally make false, damaging statements about somebody? Anonymously or otherwise? Current law says you don't have the right to do that, and I agree with the law.
Do you think it's okay to "anonymously" shoot somebody with a gun, or "anonymously" run over them with a car? If not, why should you be allowed to injure them any other way anonymously? It makes no sense.
As for "the powerful", if you are a "public figure" you have to show actual malice before you may demand reparations. Because as a public figure, there must be room for the public to comment about your actions.
But that's already the law.
I distinguish between speech, on the one hand, and shooting or running over someone, on the other hand, because speech is important to society. Our laws protect people who say things that are offensive, because sometimes the ability to speak freely is an important defense against tyrrany.
As long as a speaker remains anonymous, it is difficult to say whether there is "actual malice" involved. The only evidence we have is the words he wrote. If a public figure can out an anonymous speaker to determine whether or not there was "actual malice", the damage is done.
A person who has inside information about nefarious deeds, but who is, because of his position, vulnerable to retaliation, should be able to speak anonymously.
Unjust accusations perhaps used to time out, but they don't now. If your name is linked with child molestation now, on the web, it will be so linked essentially forever. Your only recourse may be to change your name.
Also, you're willing to lose out on a job. Are you willing to lose out on job after job? In any field where the number of applications is greater than the hiring authorities are willing to deal with, doing a quick Google search for every applicant and throwing out the applications when coming up with anything unfavorable is going to be tempting. Employers aren't worried about being fair to the people applying for jobs. They're worried about not getting an incompetent or somebody who's going to disrupt the office or cause serious problems.
Similarly, if customers Google you, you may lose too many of them. If you're working in a customer contact position, your employer may be forced to dismiss you because you're losing too many customers. If you're self-employed, your business may fall off.
I'm not worried about your friends. Either they'll realize that the accusations were false, or they're not worth keeping. I'm worried about your ability to get and hold a good job.
The ability to track down the alleger and sue him or her isn't a perfect solution, but it's better than being able to do nothing about being anonymously maligned.
Yes, you are right. The consequences to the individual of being unjustly maligned are severe. I think you may overestimate the harm in the case of an employee in a customer contact position, but even so the consequences can be harsh. However, by the time we have to choose whether or not to force an anonymous accuser to reveal himself, the damage is done: the linkage is out there for anyone to find. The ability to track down the accuser and sue him doesn't undo that; it might even make the accusation more prominent. That is why I feel that the ability to penetrate anonymity is not worth the cost to society.
Doesn't filing a court case do even more than a denial to make the original allegation more prominent?
Short term yes, long term no.
Making a denial is less noise now, but leaves the floor open for our little whisperer to continue throwing allegations around. That's what whisper campaigns and echo chambers are, after all - a continual drip of unsourced comments and allegations, until it becomes something common knowledge that everyone has heard somewhere.
A lawsuit brings attention to useful facts - that the commenter is anonymous (and thus Not Respectable), which damps down the early trouble. And now that he gets a name, there's someone who has to put up or shut up (probably on camera, if Hadley is any sort of good politician). But worst case, he goes from having to defend himself against shadows to having an actual person to rebut.
But you are overlooking the harm to society. The accused is acting in his own best interests, but I feel that outing an anonymous speaker is bad for the rest of us, because future speakers, who know something important but are vulnerable to retaliation, will hesitate to speak anonymously for fear that they will be revealed. A famous case is "Deep Throat", in which
the associate director of the FBI squealed on the president of the United States. I want that to continue to be possible.
Except that now all *you're* talking about is whether you're a pedophile. And now you're on the road to "have you stopped beating your wife yet". Whisper campaigns work, unfortunately.
I don't think this even counts as "chilling free speech". Whomever this person is, they're free to repeat their claim once they're name is revealed. And if it's some punk kid in a library, that'll do far more to kill the story than anything he can do otherwise.
Presuming that he's not *actually* a child molester, getting a name to the quote is all up-side for him. Maybe it's a kid who backs down when the cameras ask him to repeat it. Or maybe it'll trace back to a political opponent, and now he's got a whole can of whoop-ass to unload.
Yes, this is all upside for the accused. However, there is a down side for society. If a powerful person who is offended by anonymous speech can penetrate the anonymity, then no anonymous speaker is safe from being revealed. Being able to engage in anonymous political speech is an important defense against tyrrany.
The conflict here is between the right of the accused to face his accuser, and the right of an accuser to remain anonymous if he wishes. I come down on the side of the anonymous accuser because I feel that anonymous political speech is important to society.
You may be willing to pay that price but some people can not afford to pay that price. I see what your opinions are and I am grateful that you have given accurate and honest answers. I am not sure that I agree with you entirely and I, too, do not know how to solve this. I do know that I can easily think of positions that people can realistically be in where they are unable to afford to pay the price of false allegations. This is mostly due to other people who can not think logically or refuse to change their minds once they are made up.
A person who cannot afford to pay the price of a false allegation is in serious trouble, because false allegations cannot be prevented.
I have encountered people who do not think logically and refuse to change their minds once they are made up, no matter what the evidence. It is my hope that these people will be seen for what they are, and disregarded by all but those who agree with them.
And yet there are still some reporters who do investigations.
Yes. Some. Dare I say a vast minority. Given how we're constantly hearing about some blunder in the industry about popular media outlets running with a false story because they don't check their sources it's a real problem. It's beyond the general stupid masses. Even some of the smarter people will typically have some media outlets who they think are "trustworthy" and then take stories on face value. It doesn't take much for a slip-up to screw someone's life.
Heck the general public has gone bat shit crazy only last week on revelations that Snowden has compromised national security because the Russians and the Chinese now have American secrets. Or so pretty much every major news outlet has repeated based on some anonymous source that talked to a single paper.
I have seen no evidence that the general public has gone "bat shit crazy" or even noticed the story. Perhaps you are paying too much attention to news sources that magnify the facts to get a more interesting story. The technique has been around for more than 100 years: see Yellow journalism.
my opinion, the libel laws should apply only to an accuser who is willing to defend his accusation in public.
Just no. If the statement was made publicly, and the the speaker should reasonably have known it was false, then they must be subject to the law. Damage may already be done! You'd give people a pass to hit-and-run.
I will not endorse such a scheme.
Yes, I would give people a pass to hit-and-run. I would do so because I believe the only alternative is disallowing anonymous libelous speech, either by suppressing the speech or piercing the anonymity. The problem is that the definition of libelous will be perverted by the powerful to include anything that makes them uncomfortable, and that leads to the suppression of anonymous dissent.
No seriously for the most part investigations are a thing of the past. We live in a world where everyone is a live reporter themselves. An accusation gets made and moments later it hits twitter, Facebook etc, and millions of people know you as a paedophile. Then you come out through a reputable news agency and millions of people will think "Of course he says that, he's trying to hid the fact he's a paedophile!". When things go REALLY south you may even find reputable news agencies pick up what's making the round on twitter as fact, and then your Wikipedia page will have that listed as well complete with references to the media.
Anonymous Cowards can do a lot of damage in the modern media because the masses in general are stupid. Heck last week someone took a selfie of themselves against some poster, and some white knight though he was taking a snap of a child sitting further away, took his photo and it was shared several 10s of thousands of times on Facebook until someone AT HIS WORK mentioned it.
And yet there are still some reporters who do investigations.
I think you have identified the heart of the problem: "...the masses in general are stupid." It is my hope that, in time, the masses will become less stupid. Even so, I would rather suffer from the stupidity of the masses than risk the suppression of all speech that offends the powerful.
I have faith in people's intelligence. Maybe I'm wrong,
And history shows pretty clearly that you are.
Libel laws did not arise out of some lawmaker's whim. They developed over a very long time, and for very good societal reasons.
Knowingly and intentionally (not the same things) making false statements about somebody can do real damage to his or her reputation, livelihood, family life, etc. I mean real damage, in the same sense as a broken leg is damage. Once that's done, maybe they won't have the resources to fight back. Clearly that would be a one-sided situation favoring the "false witness". That's why there are legal remedies.
Of course legal remedies aren't a panacea. It takes money, time, and effort to sue somebody. That's why sometimes even if it really is libel, and really can be proved, and the injured party really does want to sue, he or she may not be reasonably able to at any given time for a number of reasons.
In order for libel laws to be effective, it has to be possible to identify the accuser. Even when it is, the accuser may be beyond the reach of justice, for example by being dead. The major benefit of libel laws, in my opinion, is that they provide a public forum (court) where the issue can be debated and a neutral party (judge or jury) can publicly decide who is right. That doesn't work if the accuser can't be made to defend his position.
In my opinion, the libel laws should apply only to an accuser who is willing to defend his accusation in public. Society should give no weight to anonymous accusations unless they are accompanied by a persuasive argument. If the accusation involves criminal conduct the State can pursue the criminal case. If it doesn't, the accused might feel that a public response to the argument is warranted.
You have a good point, and I don't have a very good answer either. There is the evil of being persecuted based on unfounded rumor, and there is the evil of "the right to be forgotten" leading to unpersons as described in "Nineteen Eighty-Four", where the inner party controls history.
Personally, I feel that the risk of tyranny is the greater of the two evils. If somebody is unwilling to deal with me socially because of a rumor about me that they've heard, and they are unwilling to ask me or those who know me personally about it, then I accept that I lose out, either on a friend, a job, a customer, or whatever. It's a price I am willing to pay.
Furthermore, I am not sure the evils that follow an unjust accusation will last forever. In time, those who rejected you will realize that you aren't such a bad guy after all, and your social status will slowly recover. Yes, people meeting you for the first time will be put off by the old records of the rumor, but those close to you will, I believe, eventually forgive you.
Free speech does not imply freedom from the consequences of your speech. If you make untrue accusations about someone you can be held accountable for your actions. The government is not stopping you from speaking, which would infringe your free speech rights. if you do it anonymously then it is not ureasonable for someone to want to pierce the veil of anonymity.
The road you are going down leads to suppression of speech which the powerful find uncomfortable. I would rather have the ability for an anonymous speaker to remain anonymous, no matter what he says. I would rather make the effort to ignore hateful and foolish speech than risk the suppression of dissent.
Let me introduce you to Dale Akiki. Patently false accusations, including that he had sacrificed a giraffe in a church classroom during Sunday services, landed him in an extended court trial. He was eventually exonerated, but for a long stretch of the 1990s, everyone in San Diego knew he was a satanic pedophile.
An interesting article, thank you. It recounts a shameful period of American history, when
people were convicted of child abuse based on manufactured evidence. However, I do not agree that "everyone in San Diego" believed that Dale Akiki was a satanic pedophile. My daughter was living in San Diego at the time, and I don't think she believed it. In fact, I would venture to guess that most people in San Diego who were even aware of the trial treated it as theatre.
If it is a bare, unsupported, accusation, just deny it. If the smearer offers evidence, offer evidence of your own that the accusation is untrue.
For example, an ad to show that I am not a witch. Everyone will believe that.
If the original accusation was simple "She's a witch" then it would have been better to ignore it, in my
opinion. Apparently she thought she could ridicule her opponents by turning it into a joke. Maybe she is right.
You're joking. Have you taken a look at people lately?
I know what a mob can do. I'll never forget the Watts riots. Nevertheless, I believe in the basic goodness of people. As best I can tell, most people who riot are looters, just trying to steal stuff. They feel like if they don't take something they are foolishly depriving themselves. I don't see any evil there, just greed and selfishness.
There are truly evil people in the world, but they are by far the minority.
I would imagine that the number of 11 year olds who review past Illinois Supreme Court decisions in their spare time is vanishingly, vanishingly small.
I agree, but I don't think Mr. Hadley believes that all of his future political opponents will be 11 years old.
For this kind of smear, in this kind of context? No, no "more speech" isn't the solution, it actually makes it worse to issue denials as it makes the original allegation more prominent, and makes a large percentage of the population think it might be true because "there's no smoke without fire."
Doesn't filing a court case do even more than a denial to make the original allegation more prominent?
Fine, but doesn't there have to be consequences when someone just makes shit up about someone else? Especially when it's something that is such a powderkeg in current climate? We don't consider it reasonable that people prove a negative, so you're already on the backfoot if someone decides to start a rumour. With Twitter and Wikipedia, it's very easy for a rumour to get repeated so much it feels like the truth.
I have faith in people's intelligence. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think most people will see through baseless accusations, and not simply react to them with revulsion. If I were accused anonymously of
pedophilia, with no further details, I would simply ignore the accusation, and I think most people would.
If somebody makes something up about me there are consequences: he loses credibility.
I think that's enough. Yes, if you say something loud enough, and often enough, people will start to believe it. However, the Internet cuts both ways. I can deny a baseless accusation in a blog post,
and anyone who cares enough to check will find it.
A system which could somehow suppress false accusations runs the danger of being perverted
into suppression of any criticism of the powerful. I would rather have no suppression at all than take that risk.
In other words, this is intended to have a chilling effect on political speech.
That depends. If you think smear campaigns are a legitimate weapon of politics, then yes.*... * In which case you're welcome to explain how this is not a legitimate defence against smear campaigns.
The proper defense against a smear campaign is not to try to silence the smearer, but to defend yourself against the merits of the attack. If it is a bare, unsupported, accusation, just deny it. If the smearer offers evidence, offer evidence of your own that the accusation is untrue. The cure for bad speech is not less bad speech but more good speech.
Accusing someone of molesting children is political speech now? Sure...
Isn't it right that people are careful what they say about other people?
I am a firm believer in free speech. The cure for bad speech (as the accusation apparently was) is not less bad speech but more good speech. If I were accused, anonymously, of pedophilia, I would not try to use the courts to find my accuser. Instead I would ignore the accusation unless it was repeated by an identifiable person, such as a reporter asking if it were true. I would answer the reporter by saying it was not, and offering to cooperate with the reporter's investigation into whether or not I was a podophile if he felt the accusation was credible enough to be worth the effort.
When he finds out the commenter was an 11 year old middle-schooler on his lunch break in the library, and not the great political adversary that he's making it out to be.
Not only that, but it's exceedingly difficult to make an example out of an 11 year old, to other 11 year olds, and not looking like an out of touch politician who's been expertly trolled by someone one fifth his age. This seems like a huge waste of resources, politically and judicially.
I don't think he will be disappointed. I think the purpose of the lawsuit is to send a message to Mr. Hadley's future political opponents to be careful what they say about him. In other words, this is intended to have a chilling effect on political speech.
I cannot intercept calls to my cell phone, so I tell everyone to call my land line if they want to reach me, and never give out my cell phone number--only my Asterisk server knows it. If the number does get out, I can change it with very little hassle: just a one-line change in my PBX. If my cell phone rings and the call isn't from my PBX, I don't answer.
Doing it this way means I need an Asterisk server in addition to the ObiHai 110. If I didn't have a cell phone I could just use the ObiHai.
I use an ObiHai 110 to route incoming calls to Asterisk, running in an old used PC I picked up at the local computer repair shop. Good calls are routed back through the ObiHai 110 to my POTS telephone. No Digium equipment involved. Outgoing calls go straight through the ObiHai 110.
Slashdot Mirror
Look... there have been many legal cases over this issue. Let's say you're a public figure. If the circumstances amount to strong evidence that there is actual malice involved (which does happen sometimes), then the injured party can get information subpoenaed in order to find out who said it. Legally, it's all based on reasonable levels of evidence, not just some ability to willy-nilly subpoena anyone you want.
There was a case in the news not long ago, in fact it was mentioned here on Slashdot. (I'm not going to take the time to look it up, though.) After seeing the evidence, the judge ruled that the plaintiff was likely able to show genuine malice, and so agreed to issue a subpoena for information about who the individual was. If the judge had found insufficient evidence of malice, he would not have issued the subpoena.
In this case, though, the standard for breaching anonymity was that the accuser stated as a matter of fact that the accused had committed a crime. See paragraph 26 of the decision, which is liked to from the story. I think that standard is far too low.
Here's a hypothetical example: the writer says, "I'm doing this because I think you're a low-life hateful/awful/dangerous person." (As opposed to, say, "I have evidence you've actually done something wrong.") Or "I'm doing this because you seduced my wife", etc. So for this example, a personal vendetta of some kind. If the statements are false, and the writer admitted that it was done for personal reasons, or personal gain of some kind, that's generally evidence of malice.
But again the point is: there has to be evidence before a subpoena my be legally issued.
A person who has inside information about nefarious deeds, but who is, because of his position, vulnerable to retaliation, should be able to speak anonymously.
They can. The law allows them to. What the law does not allow, is malicious, defamatory speech. As long as you're telling the truth, there is generally nothing to fear: truth is a near-absolute defense against libel. But if you're lying, and especially you're lying for opinion-based or selfish reasons, you'd better watch out.
That's the way it is. And frankly, that's the way it should be.
As long as you are telling the truth, and can prove it, you have nothing to fear from the law. There are other forms of retaliation, though, such as losing your job or being shunned by your friends. I don't think Deep Throat would have spoken out about Watergate if he could not have been assured of anonymity. By the standard that this court applied, Nixon could have filed an action to seek his accuser's identity, since he was accused of breaking the law.
If an anonymous accuser provides evidence enough to prove that his allegations are truthful without his testimony, then there is no need to unmask him. If he doesn't, he can be ignored.
I think that the cost of being lied about anonymously and not being able to punish the liar, is less than the cost of being unable to accuse a powerful person of having committed a crime while remaining anonymous to avoid retaliation.
Quite the opposite. It was run by every major news outlet. It was dinner table talk at my friends house. It was discussed at work. And in general it has gotten a boat load of coverage for something very unsubstantiated.
I'm not saying everyone in the public agreed. They most certainly did not, and given my observer bias of cynical and skeptical people I hang out with I would say most of them didn't believe the story. But that's not the problem, the problem is that this has gotten lip service AT ALL. If something is unsubstantiated then why would it be run by every major news outlet? Why would there be an hour long session on the topic by talk show radios?
People in general have short memories and it doesn't take long to confuse them. That is exactly why public relations campaigns are so effective. You can ruin someone based on nothing very easily, as anyone who has been accused of stalking children on Facebook can attest to. Your common sense does not protect a reputation from public perception.
I think the cynical and skeptical people you hang out with are more representative of the general public than you credit. The issue is covered by the media because it gets them attention. They don't care about the truth, they care about getting people to listen to their advertisements.
Yes, it is possible to ruin someone with a completely untruthful public relations campaign. However, forbidding anonymous speech doesn't prevent that. Even if it is well known who is telling the lies, and even if he is sued in court for defamation and is convicted, the damaging allegations are still out there, and still causing harm. Indeed, a court case might increase the harm by causing more people to become aware of the lies.
What you're overlooking is that the unmasking is coming after the court has essentially already declared that the speech in question is defamatory (which isn't a protected class of speech). There have been appeals, the anonymous person has sent lawyers to appeal on multiple occasions (which does make one doubt the "it's some random yahoo" hypothesis - Timmy's parents aren't likely to be footing the bills for lawyers to protect his identity). Reading the ruling, it's pretty clear that Mr. X has effectively *had* his day in court, and the judges are basing this ruling on the fact that they believe the posts in questions to be defamatory.
So the system is working pretty much as intended - "Fuboy" (the alias of the person who posted) has had his identity protected through the entire process, and only after substantial judicial review (which includes the judges deciding if the case has merit and a reasonable chance of success - read: it's actually defamation), has authorized revealing the name. Not to mention that at each step, he's had the ability (and has availed himself) of legal representation to attempt to quash the subpoena.
To your root point, I agree that anonymous speech is valuable. But part of that value is that it can't be used as a shield to hide behind when doing actually illegal things.
I overlooked it because, like the typical slashdotter, I hadn't read the opinion until now. Notice in paragraph 26 that the court is concerned about the constitutional right of anonymous speech. Apparently, any statement that can reasonably be construed as accusing someone of committing a crime triggers the loss of anonymity. I don't think that is good enough. Paragraph 26 also hints that other courts apply a stricter standard, so apparently there is not uniformity on this rule. I advocate a much higher standard: no matter what is said, the privilege of anonymity is absolute.
Here is a hypothetical example to illustrate my point. A person using the pseudonym Mrs. Silence Dogood writes a comment on the web site of the New England Courant in response to a story about the Queen of England, calling her a tyrant. Tyranny is, of course, a crime, so this comment accuses a person of a crime. The local representative of the Queen files a rule 224 petition to learn the name of the accuser. The court rules that the statement is defamation and outs Benjamin Franklin.
Why should you be allowed to intentionally make false, damaging statements about somebody? Anonymously or otherwise? Current law says you don't have the right to do that, and I agree with the law.
Do you think it's okay to "anonymously" shoot somebody with a gun, or "anonymously" run over them with a car? If not, why should you be allowed to injure them any other way anonymously? It makes no sense.
As for "the powerful", if you are a "public figure" you have to show actual malice before you may demand reparations. Because as a public figure, there must be room for the public to comment about your actions.
But that's already the law.
I distinguish between speech, on the one hand, and shooting or running over someone, on the other hand, because speech is important to society. Our laws protect people who say things that are offensive, because sometimes the ability to speak freely is an important defense against tyrrany.
As long as a speaker remains anonymous, it is difficult to say whether there is "actual malice" involved. The only evidence we have is the words he wrote. If a public figure can out an anonymous speaker to determine whether or not there was "actual malice", the damage is done.
A person who has inside information about nefarious deeds, but who is, because of his position, vulnerable to retaliation, should be able to speak anonymously.
Unjust accusations perhaps used to time out, but they don't now. If your name is linked with child molestation now, on the web, it will be so linked essentially forever. Your only recourse may be to change your name.
Also, you're willing to lose out on a job. Are you willing to lose out on job after job? In any field where the number of applications is greater than the hiring authorities are willing to deal with, doing a quick Google search for every applicant and throwing out the applications when coming up with anything unfavorable is going to be tempting. Employers aren't worried about being fair to the people applying for jobs. They're worried about not getting an incompetent or somebody who's going to disrupt the office or cause serious problems.
Similarly, if customers Google you, you may lose too many of them. If you're working in a customer contact position, your employer may be forced to dismiss you because you're losing too many customers. If you're self-employed, your business may fall off.
I'm not worried about your friends. Either they'll realize that the accusations were false, or they're not worth keeping. I'm worried about your ability to get and hold a good job.
The ability to track down the alleger and sue him or her isn't a perfect solution, but it's better than being able to do nothing about being anonymously maligned.
Yes, you are right. The consequences to the individual of being unjustly maligned are severe. I think you may overestimate the harm in the case of an employee in a customer contact position, but even so the consequences can be harsh. However, by the time we have to choose whether or not to force an anonymous accuser to reveal himself, the damage is done: the linkage is out there for anyone to find. The ability to track down the accuser and sue him doesn't undo that; it might even make the accusation more prominent. That is why I feel that the ability to penetrate anonymity is not worth the cost to society.
Doesn't filing a court case do even more than a denial to make the original allegation more prominent?
Short term yes, long term no.
Making a denial is less noise now, but leaves the floor open for our little whisperer to continue throwing allegations around. That's what whisper campaigns and echo chambers are, after all - a continual drip of unsourced comments and allegations, until it becomes something common knowledge that everyone has heard somewhere.
A lawsuit brings attention to useful facts - that the commenter is anonymous (and thus Not Respectable), which damps down the early trouble. And now that he gets a name, there's someone who has to put up or shut up (probably on camera, if Hadley is any sort of good politician). But worst case, he goes from having to defend himself against shadows to having an actual person to rebut.
But you are overlooking the harm to society. The accused is acting in his own best interests, but I feel that outing an anonymous speaker is bad for the rest of us, because future speakers, who know something important but are vulnerable to retaliation, will hesitate to speak anonymously for fear that they will be revealed. A famous case is "Deep Throat", in which the associate director of the FBI squealed on the president of the United States. I want that to continue to be possible.
Except that now all *you're* talking about is whether you're a pedophile. And now you're on the road to "have you stopped beating your wife yet". Whisper campaigns work, unfortunately.
I don't think this even counts as "chilling free speech". Whomever this person is, they're free to repeat their claim once they're name is revealed. And if it's some punk kid in a library, that'll do far more to kill the story than anything he can do otherwise.
Presuming that he's not *actually* a child molester, getting a name to the quote is all up-side for him. Maybe it's a kid who backs down when the cameras ask him to repeat it. Or maybe it'll trace back to a political opponent, and now he's got a whole can of whoop-ass to unload.
Yes, this is all upside for the accused. However, there is a down side for society. If a powerful person who is offended by anonymous speech can penetrate the anonymity, then no anonymous speaker is safe from being revealed. Being able to engage in anonymous political speech is an important defense against tyrrany.
The conflict here is between the right of the accused to face his accuser, and the right of an accuser to remain anonymous if he wishes. I come down on the side of the anonymous accuser because I feel that anonymous political speech is important to society.
You may be willing to pay that price but some people can not afford to pay that price. I see what your opinions are and I am grateful that you have given accurate and honest answers. I am not sure that I agree with you entirely and I, too, do not know how to solve this. I do know that I can easily think of positions that people can realistically be in where they are unable to afford to pay the price of false allegations. This is mostly due to other people who can not think logically or refuse to change their minds once they are made up.
A person who cannot afford to pay the price of a false allegation is in serious trouble, because false allegations cannot be prevented.
I have encountered people who do not think logically and refuse to change their minds once they are made up, no matter what the evidence. It is my hope that these people will be seen for what they are, and disregarded by all but those who agree with them.
And yet there are still some reporters who do investigations.
Yes. Some. Dare I say a vast minority. Given how we're constantly hearing about some blunder in the industry about popular media outlets running with a false story because they don't check their sources it's a real problem. It's beyond the general stupid masses. Even some of the smarter people will typically have some media outlets who they think are "trustworthy" and then take stories on face value. It doesn't take much for a slip-up to screw someone's life.
Heck the general public has gone bat shit crazy only last week on revelations that Snowden has compromised national security because the Russians and the Chinese now have American secrets. Or so pretty much every major news outlet has repeated based on some anonymous source that talked to a single paper.
I have seen no evidence that the general public has gone "bat shit crazy" or even noticed the story. Perhaps you are paying too much attention to news sources that magnify the facts to get a more interesting story. The technique has been around for more than 100 years: see Yellow journalism.
my opinion, the libel laws should apply only to an accuser who is willing to defend his accusation in public.
Just no. If the statement was made publicly, and the the speaker should reasonably have known it was false, then they must be subject to the law. Damage may already be done! You'd give people a pass to hit-and-run.
I will not endorse such a scheme.
Yes, I would give people a pass to hit-and-run. I would do so because I believe the only alternative is disallowing anonymous libelous speech, either by suppressing the speech or piercing the anonymity. The problem is that the definition of libelous will be perverted by the powerful to include anything that makes them uncomfortable, and that leads to the suppression of anonymous dissent.
Reporter investigation? What's that?
No seriously for the most part investigations are a thing of the past. We live in a world where everyone is a live reporter themselves. An accusation gets made and moments later it hits twitter, Facebook etc, and millions of people know you as a paedophile. Then you come out through a reputable news agency and millions of people will think "Of course he says that, he's trying to hid the fact he's a paedophile!". When things go REALLY south you may even find reputable news agencies pick up what's making the round on twitter as fact, and then your Wikipedia page will have that listed as well complete with references to the media.
Anonymous Cowards can do a lot of damage in the modern media because the masses in general are stupid. Heck last week someone took a selfie of themselves against some poster, and some white knight though he was taking a snap of a child sitting further away, took his photo and it was shared several 10s of thousands of times on Facebook until someone AT HIS WORK mentioned it.
And yet there are still some reporters who do investigations.
I think you have identified the heart of the problem: "...the masses in general are stupid." It is my hope that, in time, the masses will become less stupid. Even so, I would rather suffer from the stupidity of the masses than risk the suppression of all speech that offends the powerful.
I have faith in people's intelligence. Maybe I'm wrong,
And history shows pretty clearly that you are.
Libel laws did not arise out of some lawmaker's whim. They developed over a very long time, and for very good societal reasons.
Knowingly and intentionally (not the same things) making false statements about somebody can do real damage to his or her reputation, livelihood, family life, etc. I mean real damage, in the same sense as a broken leg is damage. Once that's done, maybe they won't have the resources to fight back. Clearly that would be a one-sided situation favoring the "false witness". That's why there are legal remedies.
Of course legal remedies aren't a panacea. It takes money, time, and effort to sue somebody. That's why sometimes even if it really is libel, and really can be proved, and the injured party really does want to sue, he or she may not be reasonably able to at any given time for a number of reasons.
In order for libel laws to be effective, it has to be possible to identify the accuser. Even when it is, the accuser may be beyond the reach of justice, for example by being dead. The major benefit of libel laws, in my opinion, is that they provide a public forum (court) where the issue can be debated and a neutral party (judge or jury) can publicly decide who is right. That doesn't work if the accuser can't be made to defend his position.
In my opinion, the libel laws should apply only to an accuser who is willing to defend his accusation in public. Society should give no weight to anonymous accusations unless they are accompanied by a persuasive argument. If the accusation involves criminal conduct the State can pursue the criminal case. If it doesn't, the accused might feel that a public response to the argument is warranted.
You have a good point, and I don't have a very good answer either. There is the evil of being persecuted based on unfounded rumor, and there is the evil of "the right to be forgotten" leading to unpersons as described in "Nineteen Eighty-Four", where the inner party controls history.
Personally, I feel that the risk of tyranny is the greater of the two evils. If somebody is unwilling to deal with me socially because of a rumor about me that they've heard, and they are unwilling to ask me or those who know me personally about it, then I accept that I lose out, either on a friend, a job, a customer, or whatever. It's a price I am willing to pay.
Furthermore, I am not sure the evils that follow an unjust accusation will last forever. In time, those who rejected you will realize that you aren't such a bad guy after all, and your social status will slowly recover. Yes, people meeting you for the first time will be put off by the old records of the rumor, but those close to you will, I believe, eventually forgive you.
Free speech does not imply freedom from the consequences of your speech. If you make untrue accusations about someone you can be held accountable for your actions. The government is not stopping you from speaking, which would infringe your free speech rights. if you do it anonymously then it is not ureasonable for someone to want to pierce the veil of anonymity.
The road you are going down leads to suppression of speech which the powerful find uncomfortable. I would rather have the ability for an anonymous speaker to remain anonymous, no matter what he says. I would rather make the effort to ignore hateful and foolish speech than risk the suppression of dissent.
Let me introduce you to Dale Akiki. Patently false accusations, including that he had sacrificed a giraffe in a church classroom during Sunday services, landed him in an extended court trial. He was eventually exonerated, but for a long stretch of the 1990s, everyone in San Diego knew he was a satanic pedophile.
An interesting article, thank you. It recounts a shameful period of American history, when people were convicted of child abuse based on manufactured evidence. However, I do not agree that "everyone in San Diego" believed that Dale Akiki was a satanic pedophile. My daughter was living in San Diego at the time, and I don't think she believed it. In fact, I would venture to guess that most people in San Diego who were even aware of the trial treated it as theatre.
If it is a bare, unsupported, accusation, just deny it. If the smearer offers evidence, offer evidence of your own that the accusation is untrue.
For example, an ad to show that I am not a witch. Everyone will believe that.
If the original accusation was simple "She's a witch" then it would have been better to ignore it, in my opinion. Apparently she thought she could ridicule her opponents by turning it into a joke. Maybe she is right.
You're joking. Have you taken a look at people lately?
I know what a mob can do. I'll never forget the Watts riots. Nevertheless, I believe in the basic goodness of people. As best I can tell, most people who riot are looters, just trying to steal stuff. They feel like if they don't take something they are foolishly depriving themselves. I don't see any evil there, just greed and selfishness.
There are truly evil people in the world, but they are by far the minority.
I would imagine that the number of 11 year olds who review past Illinois Supreme Court decisions in their spare time is vanishingly, vanishingly small.
I agree, but I don't think Mr. Hadley believes that all of his future political opponents will be 11 years old.
For this kind of smear, in this kind of context? No, no "more speech" isn't the solution, it actually makes it worse to issue denials as it makes the original allegation more prominent, and makes a large percentage of the population think it might be true because "there's no smoke without fire."
Doesn't filing a court case do even more than a denial to make the original allegation more prominent?
Fine, but doesn't there have to be consequences when someone just makes shit up about someone else? Especially when it's something that is such a powderkeg in current climate? We don't consider it reasonable that people prove a negative, so you're already on the backfoot if someone decides to start a rumour. With Twitter and Wikipedia, it's very easy for a rumour to get repeated so much it feels like the truth.
I have faith in people's intelligence. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think most people will see through baseless accusations, and not simply react to them with revulsion. If I were accused anonymously of pedophilia, with no further details, I would simply ignore the accusation, and I think most people would.
If somebody makes something up about me there are consequences: he loses credibility. I think that's enough. Yes, if you say something loud enough, and often enough, people will start to believe it. However, the Internet cuts both ways. I can deny a baseless accusation in a blog post, and anyone who cares enough to check will find it.
A system which could somehow suppress false accusations runs the danger of being perverted into suppression of any criticism of the powerful. I would rather have no suppression at all than take that risk.
In other words, this is intended to have a chilling effect on political speech.
That depends. If you think smear campaigns are a legitimate weapon of politics, then yes.* ... * In which case you're welcome to explain how this is not a legitimate defence against smear campaigns.
The proper defense against a smear campaign is not to try to silence the smearer, but to defend yourself against the merits of the attack. If it is a bare, unsupported, accusation, just deny it. If the smearer offers evidence, offer evidence of your own that the accusation is untrue. The cure for bad speech is not less bad speech but more good speech.
Accusing someone of molesting children is political speech now? Sure...
Isn't it right that people are careful what they say about other people?
I am a firm believer in free speech. The cure for bad speech (as the accusation apparently was) is not less bad speech but more good speech. If I were accused, anonymously, of pedophilia, I would not try to use the courts to find my accuser. Instead I would ignore the accusation unless it was repeated by an identifiable person, such as a reporter asking if it were true. I would answer the reporter by saying it was not, and offering to cooperate with the reporter's investigation into whether or not I was a podophile if he felt the accusation was credible enough to be worth the effort.
When he finds out the commenter was an 11 year old middle-schooler on his lunch break in the library, and not the great political adversary that he's making it out to be.
Not only that, but it's exceedingly difficult to make an example out of an 11 year old, to other 11 year olds, and not looking like an out of touch politician who's been expertly trolled by someone one fifth his age. This seems like a huge waste of resources, politically and judicially.
I don't think he will be disappointed. I think the purpose of the lawsuit is to send a message to Mr. Hadley's future political opponents to be careful what they say about him. In other words, this is intended to have a chilling effect on political speech.
What do you do for cell phone robocalls?
I cannot intercept calls to my cell phone, so I tell everyone to call my land line if they want to reach me, and never give out my cell phone number--only my Asterisk server knows it. If the number does get out, I can change it with very little hassle: just a one-line change in my PBX. If my cell phone rings and the call isn't from my PBX, I don't answer.
Doing it this way means I need an Asterisk server in addition to the ObiHai 110. If I didn't have a cell phone I could just use the ObiHai.
I use an ObiHai 110 to route incoming calls to Asterisk, running in an old used PC I picked up at the local computer repair shop. Good calls are routed back through the ObiHai 110 to my POTS telephone. No Digium equipment involved. Outgoing calls go straight through the ObiHai 110.