Stanley Fish explores this subject in his NY Times piece, Anonymity and the Dark Side of the Internet. He employs the work of liberal thinkers who claim to be for free speech but then start throwing around concepts like "managing free speech" and coining terms like "low-value speech." When you hear Sunsteinian progressives talk like this, watch out!
"What is remarkable about this volume is that the legal academics who make the arguments I have rehearsed are by and large strong free-speech advocates.
Yet faced with the problems posed by the Internet, they start talking about “low value” speech (a concept strong first-amendment doctrine rejects) and saying things like “autonomy resides not in free choice per se but in choosing wisely” and “society needs not an absence of ‘chill,’ but an optimal level.”(In short, let’s figure out which forms of speech we should discourage.)"
How does "society" establish an "optimal level" of "chill?" Who decides just what that optimal level is, and how do you impose it? I am chilled just reading these clawing control freaks.
This issue, like all progressive baloney, springs from a manufactured dilemma built upon a false premise. Here's what it's really all about: Stopping those accursed rightwing bloggers!
The practice of withholding the identity of the speaker is strategic, and one purpose of the strategy (this is the second problem with anonymity) is to avoid responsibility and accountability for what one is saying.
Anonymity, Martha Nussbaum, a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Chicago observes, allows Internet bloggers “to create for themselves a shame-free zone in which they can inflict shame on others.” The power of the bloggers, she continues, “depends on their ability to insulate their Internet selves from responsibility in the real world, while ensuring real-world consequences” for those they injure.
There are a few problems with this...
First, Silverfiddle's blog does not carry the same weight as the NY Times. I can level the most outrageous of charges and barely cause a ripple. The New York Times can end careers with a single sentence.
Second, the author can produce no instance where bloggers in this "shame free zone" injured anyone. Why not? Because it's never happened! The few attempts I remember fell pretty flat. Palin rumors, Obama cocaine and gay sex stories, Christine O'Donnell's halloween sex adventure, Nikki Haley adultery... It's all been thrown out there, and there was no "there" there. None of these people were destroyed by anonymous, unsubstantiated claims.
Anonymity is Overblown
First, Silverfiddle's blog does not carry the same weight as the NY Times. I can level the most outrageous of charges and barely cause a ripple. The New York Times can end careers with a single sentence.
Second, the author can produce no instance where bloggers in this "shame free zone" injured anyone. Why not? Because it's never happened! The few attempts I remember fell pretty flat. Palin rumors, Obama cocaine and gay sex stories, Christine O'Donnell's halloween sex adventure, Nikki Haley adultery... It's all been thrown out there, and there was no "there" there. None of these people were destroyed by anonymous, unsubstantiated claims.
Anonymity is Overblown
Not all of us are so stupid as to ingest and regurgitate whatever someone pukes out. Responsible people do some homework and demand evidence. A scandalous broadside may garner attention, but the accuser must eventually put up or shut up. Failure of the accuser to pop his head up and provide proof
discredits him.
Anonymity is overblown anyway. A skeptical Daniel Solove at Concurring Opinions ask, Is Anonymous Blogging Possible? The answer is no, it is not. If they want you, they can come and get you. An anonymous person simply does not have the power the hysterical progressives claim he does. This is a crisis invented by big government statists as a pretext for them to take even more power and control over our lives.
