Can Outing an Anonymous Blogger be Justified? 197
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."
Does not, eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Isn't their take bass-ackwards? (Score:4, Interesting)
Or am I off my rocker?
-1, poor style (Score:4, Interesting)
Absolutely, depending on the circumstances
No editorial slant on this FP, no-sir-ee!
Many of our fundamental "rights" in the modern world very much depend on not only having anonymity before doing something, but after as well.
In particular, and I expect the FP author had this exact situation in mind, when the exercise of speech/publishing relates to the commission of a crime. But in all but a few situations (defamation or lying to a grand jury come to mind), the crime and the speech exist as entirely separate concepts, with the latter protected.
Even when the speech does break the law directly (defamation), you need to consider how much credibility an anonymous source really has. If I say "The PS3 sucks", I may have defamed Sony, but no one will care. If US VP of marketing for SCEA says the same thing, it would make headlines (at least in the geek news community).
If I cheat on my taxes, that breaks the law. If I brag about it anonymously - The bragging doesn't break the law, and I have every right to maintain my anonymity in the bragging. If the IRS catches me for the crime itself, no foul; If they hunt me down like a dog and then find out I just bragged but have filed accurately, they have wasted time and money and potentially injured me financially or reputation-wise in the process, despite no actual crime occuring.
Anonymity has a dark side, but without an absolute right to it, we may as well let the government install "The Eye" in our living rooms right now.
Newspapers' Job is to Expose (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Can Outing an Anonymous Blogger be Justified? (Score:1, Interesting)
Companies, politicians, and celebrities abhor the anonymity that the internet can provide, and so they hunt and battle it endlessly. However, they do this for selfish reasons, simply put. No one likes to be bad mouthed and their first thought is revenge. They don't care if it is a lone disgruntled person or an opponents organized effort. They just want to know and incorrectly assume they have the right to know. They do not.
If they are able to, by legal means, determine the person's identity, then that is fine. That means looking for mistakes, posting hints (like the video) and asking for help, or in the case where they can demonstrate to a court a reasonable probability of libel, then they should be able to get a subpoena. However, they should not be allowed to gain identity by illegal means, like HP and their pretexting or with bogus SLAPP lawsuits or subpoenas. Most often they claim their is a conspiracy, a political one or a shorting conspiracy or an employee using confidential information, and try to get a subpoena for IP or other privileged info on those basis, with no proof whatsoever of slander, libel, etc. That, is the divide between when someone has rights to anonymity and when legal means are justified to expose the person. There is no basis (unless the person makes a claim that they broke the law or was an insider or etc) to use that as a reason to unmask them. The only reason to unmask them is if in their statements they break the law.
And again, if the person trying to be anonymous makes a mistake and can be unmasked without breaking the law, that is just fair game.
Re:Does not, eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
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-habe
Of course, it isn't correct but shows that the man should never have been confirmed.
B.
Re:What right to life? (Score:3, Interesting)
From the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Girl With A One-Track Mind (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What right to life? (Score:2, Interesting)