Defamatory anonymous blogs under fire

[sympa]

Quote:August 24, 2009, 11:59 pm [N.Y. Times]

Is It O.K. to Blog About This Woman Anonymously?
By Randy Cohen
The Issue
Marc Hermann/NY Daily News Liskula Cohen
Last week Judge Joan Madden ordered Google to identify the anonymous blogger whose site, “Skanks in NYC,” hosted by a Google subsidiary and now removed, slammed the fashion model Liskula Cohen. Madden found the blogger’s writing, including the assertion that Cohen is a “psychotic, lying, whoring … skank,” to be “reasonably susceptible to a defamatory connotation.” That is, Cohen has the basis for a lawsuit and is entitled to know the identity of the blogger in order to seek legal redress. Google complied, identifying the blogger to Cohen’s lawyer. Has anonymous posting, though generally protected by law, become so toxic that it should be discouraged?

The Argument
It has. To promote the social good of lively conversation and the exchange of ideas, transparency should be the default mode. And that goes both for lofty political discourse and casual comments on Amazon. “Says who?” is not a trivial question. It deepens the reader’s understanding to know who is speaking, from what perspective, with what (nutty?) history, and with what personal stake in the matter. It encourages civility and integrity in the writer to stand behind her words. There are times when anonymous posting is necessary, when disclosure is apt to bring harsh retribution — I’ll come to that — but more often, anonymous posting sustains a culture, or at least a hideous subculture, of calumny and malice so caustic as to inhibit the very discourse the Web can so admirably enable. Writers should not do it, and Web site hosts should not allow it.

As the writer Katha Pollitt (who is also my ex-wife) puts it: “I get a ton of hostile, misogynous, idiotic comments from anonymous trolls when I blog at The Nation. Sometimes I feel like I am dancing on the table for an audience of drunks. Not only is it dispiriting — and let’s not forget that women writers on the Internet receive vastly more hateful comments than male writers — it has nothing to do with the brisk and vigorous exchange of ideas often said to be the reason for anonymity. Because there are no ideas and no exchange.”

My own experience has been marked by greater cordiality, but then again, I have a virtual bodyguard. The Times employs moderated comments, declining, according to its policy, to post those that include “personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence and SHOUTING.” But the very necessity of filtering such vitriol points up the consequences of anonymous posting.

Were it merely a matter of taste or tone or social style — etiquette — the anonymously obnoxious would be unimportant: we could all just lament the rising tide of coarseness and get on with it. But those who offer not argument but invective discourage others from speaking. People who might be inclined to express an opinion grow reluctant when doing so means having some stranger call you a … well, judging by some of the unsigned e-mail I receive in response to “The Ethicist,” my column in the Times Magazine, there is no limit to what epithets will be flung. (Still, I should note, most responses are courteous. But I did have to toughen up.) It is the conversational version of Gresham’s law: bad discourse drives out good.

There are times when anonymity is legitimately practiced — by political dissidents in repressive regimes, for example. Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, told me: “We’ve defended the right to anonymous speech successfully on some occasions,” including “Iranian students in masked protest at the time of the shah.” Journalists reasonably use anonymous sources when doing so is the only way to obtain significant information. Rate My Professors and the like, though not without their faults, are useful enterprises that rely on the shield of anonymity. Without it, what student, mindful of the wrath of a teacher scorned, would post? (But with anonymity comes diminished credibility. It’s tough to distinguish the astute from the vengeful.) Even in more casual online settings, students are vulnerable. Lieberman noted that “lots of school districts have discipline codes (to which we object) that punish out-of-school Internet speech by high school students.” She also said there are situations when it is important to identify an incognito poster — for instance, to thwart harassment or bullying. So how are we to determine when anonymous posting is proper?

Here is a guideline. The effects of anonymous posting have become so baleful that it should be forsworn unless there is a reasonable fear of retribution. By posting openly, we support the conditions in which honest conversation can flourish.

To take this approach is to break from the past. We are a nation founded on anonymous postings, or their 18th-century equivalent, pseudononymous pamphlets. The authors of the Federalist Papers, including Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, published under the name Publius. Among Benjamin Franklin’s many pen names are Silence Dogood, Harry Meanwell, Alice Addertongue and, most famously, Richard Saunders, better known as Poor Richard. Justice Clarence Thomas, concurring with the majority in a 1995 case, wrote a celebration of anonymous publication in 18th-century America.

But conditions change, and what was benign in one setting can be malignant in another; that’s why we no longer allow people to wander the streets of our cities carrying guns. (O.K., we do allow that. But we have a good reason: to protect ourselves from marauding dinosaurs.) What has not altered is the importance of the free exchange of ideas. Ethics urges us to act in ways that promote this social good which, except when facing a genuine threat, means writing with civility and signing your name. This is not a panacea — mechanisms must be put in place to conveniently allow honestly signed comments, and even those can be vituperative — but it’s a start.

Incidentally, Liskula Cohen has filed a $3 million defamation suit against the no-longer anonymous Rosemary Port, who turns out to be an acquaintance of Cohen’s, but her lawyers now say that she intends to drop the suit. Port, on the other hand, may sue Google for violating her privacy.

[Herbert Spencer]

It's not defamatory if it's true.  And it's not defamatory if it's an expression of an opinion, for which purpose "discussion" boards such as this one are intended.  Just because you don't like it or don't agree with it doesn't make it defamation.

Somebody might want to brush up on the First Amendment.  It's part of that thing we in the US call "the Constitution."  Even though your marxist hero Obama is president he hasn't had time to repeal all of it yet.

You also might want to review anti-SLAPP legislation and cases before you do anything stupid.  E.g., Court awards $55,000 in legal fees to ‘John Does’

[ham]

Quote:By Randy Cohen
The Issue
Marc Hermann/NY Daily News Liskula Cohen
Last week Judge Joan Madden ordered Google to identify the anonymous blogger whose site, “Skanks in NYC,” hosted by a Google subsidiary and now removed, slammed the fashion model Liskula Cohen.

I stopped reading at that point.

Remember the Frenchwoman who was taken to court for posting on a politician's blog "it's false" (or something like that)?
And what about all the privacy?
None:
the vast majority of websites, ISPs and IT companies are just too eager to bend over for big brother that they unconsciously bend over whenever they seem to hear pants being unbuttoned.
Why?
The least we can say is that big brother and its cronies may fear societal pressures from some...who knows, they may find them there swapping oysters and caviar with other members of the 'occult' fraternity, in the face of the 'proudly american' unwashed who are mostly good to pay taxes and to die in whatever war big brother things will be the one to end all...this week...
Even if victims of these frivulous lawsuits are left off the hook, the message is simple: don't ever think of annoying big brother and its 'friends'...you never know...remember the mafia henchman who 'warned' Elliott Ness in THE UNTOUCHABLES?

[Herbert Spencer]

ham Wrote:...the message is simple: don't ever think of annoying big brother and its 'friends'...you never know...

China today, the "free world" tomorrow?  If numbnuts like Gollum and his Obamunist friends have their way...

China Web Sites Seeking Users’ Names

Quote:By JONATHAN ANSFIELD
Published: September 5, 2009

BEIJING — News Web sites in China, complying with secret government orders, are requiring that new users log on under their true identities to post comments, a shift in policy that the country’s Internet users and media have fiercely opposed in the past.

Until recently, users could weigh in on news items on many of the affected sites more anonymously, often without registering at all, though the sites were obligated to screen all posts, and the posts could still be traced via Internet protocol addresses.

But in early August, without notification of a change, news portals like Sina, Netease, Sohu and scores of other sites began asking unregistered users to sign in under their real names and identification numbers, said top editors at two of the major portals affected. A Sina staff member also confirmed the change.

The editors said the sites were putting into effect a confidential directive issued in late July by the State Council Information Office, one of the main government bodies responsible for supervising the Internet in China.

The new step is not foolproof, the editors acknowledged. It was possible for a reporter to register successfully on several major sites under falsified names and ID and cellphone numbers.

But the requirement adds a critical new layer of surveillance to mainstream sites in China, which were already heavily policed. Further regulations of the same nature also appeared to be in the pipeline.

And while the authorities called the measure part of a drive to forge greater “social responsibility” and “civility” among users, they moved forward surreptitiously and suppressed reports about it, said the editors and others in the media industry familiar with the measure, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid putting their jobs at risk.

Asked why the policy was pushed through unannounced, the chief editor of one site said, “The influence of public opinion on the Net is still too big.”

Government Internet regulators have been trying to usher in real-name registration controls since 2003, when they ordered Internet cafes around China to demand that customers show identification, nominally to keep out minors. Last year, lawmakers and regulators began discussing legislation on a more extensive “real name system,” as it is known.

But such proposals have aroused heated debate over the purview of the state to restrict China’s online community, which is the largest in the world at about 340 million people and growing.

Proponents, led by officials and state-connected academics in the information security field, argue that mandatory controls are necessary to help subdue inflammatory attacks, misinformation and other illegal activity deemed to endanger social order. They often note registration requirements on large sites in South Korea to support their point.

Critics counter that government regulation represents an incursion on free speech, individual privacy and the watchdog role of the Web in China.

The critics say sites and users should retain the right to discipline themselves. Given the country’s huge population of Internet users and its failure to guarantee freedom of expression, they argue, the case of China is hardly analogous to that of South Korea.

In 2006, Internet users and the news media rebuffed one official proposal to require real-name registration on blog hosting sites. Star bloggers denounced the notion, while ordinary users overwhelmingly rejected it in surveys conducted on sites like Sina.

In another key test of the policy earlier this year, the legislature in Hangzhou, near Shanghai, passed a regulation that would have placed the requirement on users who comment, blog or play games on sites based there. Amid a popular outcry, however, the city shied away from enforcing the regulation.

Central authorities have gone to new lengths to tame online activity in 2009, a year peppered with politically delicate anniversaries.

Government censors have closed thousands of sites in a continuing war on “vulgarity,” closed liberal forums and blogs for spreading “harmful information,” blocked access to YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, and cut off Internet service where serious unrest has erupted, notably in the Xinjiang region of the west after deadly clashes between ethnic Uighurs and Han in July. Increasingly, officials have defended the Web shutdowns on the grounds of national security.

The government recently set off an international furor when it ordered that all computers sold in China come prepackaged with pornography filtering software that authorities could remotely control. Officials were forced to retreat from the order after international companies and trade bodies protested and Chinese hackers showed that the software was designed to block politically offensive content as well.

The authorities had aimed to avoid a similar showdown over the new real-name requirement. “We had no recourse to challenge it,” said the news editor of another portal.

Ta Kung Pao, a Hong Kong-based newspaper loyal to Beijing, first leaked news of the State Council edict in late July. But the report was scrubbed from the paper’s Web site within a few days.

Another state newspaper tried to follow up on the Ta Kung Pao report soon thereafter, the paper’s editors said, but they were forced to abort their article because they were warned that the order was a state secret.

The State Council Information Office had yet to respond to a list of submitted questions about the move.

The new mandate did not appear to affect formerly registered users of the portals. Nor did it affect blog hosts, forums or government news sites like People’s Daily or Xinhua.

Whether because it had an impact mainly on rookie users or because of the void of news about it, bloggers in China were unusually slow to recognize the measure. But those who did were critical.

One commentator on the popular forum Tianya wrote, “Not daring to write one’s real name, in truth, is a form of self-protection for the weak.”

There were signals in the state media in recent weeks that more name registration measures would follow.

An influential advocate of the policy, Fang Bingxing, the president of Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, told a forum in August that the “time was ripe” to roll it out widely to bolster information security, newspapers reported.

A trail of comments on Sina thrashed the report.

Late last month, the Communist Party-run Guangming Daily ran a positive story about a city government portal in western China that imposed the requirement on new bloggers, calling it a “forerunner.”

Hu Yong, a new media specialist at Peking University, said government-enforced registration requirements carried long-term side effects.

“Netizens will have less trust in the government, and to a certain extent, the development of the industry will be impeded,” he said.

From a comparison of the most commented-on articles in July and August on a number of portals it was hard to determine whether the volume of posts had been affected so far.

But both editors at two of the major portals affected said their sites had shown marked drop-offs.

[ham]

Quote:But in early August, without notification of a change, news portals like Sina, Netease, Sohu and scores of other sites began asking unregistered users to sign in under their real names and identification numbers, said top editors at two of the major portals affected. A Sina staff member also confirmed the change.

Well, apparently popular movie site IMDB now requires authentication. What's disturbing is that they require either a credit card...or to login with an Amazon account, which should be 'anonymous', but you bet Amazon can link your account to your credit card purchases. Facebook offers to stop nagware if you 'authenticate' with personal data. They are not the only ones and they are not in China.

Quote:Proponents, led by officials and state-connected academics in the information security field, argue that mandatory controls are necessary to help subdue inflammatory attacks, misinformation and other illegal activity deemed to endanger social order. They often note registration requirements on large sites in South Korea to support their point.

Guess what?
It's the same excuse IMDB & others put forward.
You know...'controlling antinationals' is an old concept.

Quote:Obamunist friends have their way...

Let's not forget it was George Doublejew who passed control laws with Biden being instrumental. What were the unwashed little Hulkamaniacs doing? Nothing. They were waving their ten cents little flags all happy to help the commander in chief to secure once again the fabulous American way against the axis of evil of the day...PFFT!
Remember when big brother said the eviction of the Talibans would bring 1000 years of prosperity and the end of terrorism?
Then it said it was Iraq...no wait, Iran...Venezuela...North Korea...Russia...Syria...get the picture?

[ham]

Have you noticed how most universities and other places of general interest now warn you that "your call may be monitored or recorded for training and quality purposes"...
So that is what "Nazis" were...very trained and obsessed with quality...PFFT!