The Anonymity of the Internet

There is an interesting case I heard about on the news which I am pondering. A model, Liskula Cohen, is suing Google to find out who is responsible for a web site devoted to trashing her photos and personality. It brings up some interesting arguments.

There will, of course be those who argue for the First Amendment right of free speech. Before I partially agree with that point of view, I feel obligated to point out that the right of free speech was intended to be for political speech. It was the view of the founding fathers that to have a functional democracy, the population should be allowed to hear all sides of issues to make informed judgments. In order to have representative votes, the population has to be educated on political debates. I don’t believe they ever intended exotic dancers to run around naked as part of their first amendment rights. Therefore, I believe the First Amendment is critically important to a democracy when interpreted in that light.

That being said, before the internet, when you spoke out or wrote about a subject, any subject, it was easy to recognize who the source of the information was. That recognition allowed the subject of the discussion to respond accordingly to the speaker or writer. The internet has now allowed anyone, anywhere to widely broadcast any information, factual or not, anonymously without directed response and without ever being held accountable for the content. In law, one of the fundamental rights of trials is to be able to face your accuser and present your side of an issue. It is precisely the anonymity of the internet that allows cowards and provocateurs to make slanderous accusations without ever being held responsible.

In order to win a case of libel in court, one must show that the information presented is false, that damage has been done, and most importantly, that there was intentional malice in the presenter’s publication of the information. This is where almost everyone, particularly news organizations, gets out of responsibility for their false information. They just say they never intended to hurt anyone. In fact, for most public figures, it is assumed that lies about them are par for the course. Whether a Vogue model is a public figure can be debated. The question is more about where the anonymity line is drawn. The fact that some coward calls a model a “skank” is not Earth-shattering but the fact that the person cannot be identified means that all restraint is gone. What if the person is publishing classified data or advocating open rebellion? I can already hear people saying, “But that is against the law!” or "It is only an opinion". Slander and libel are also reasons to be held accountable. The only difference is that it is a civil action, not a criminal one. Can someone knowingly publish false facts or intentionally hurtful information on the internet anonymously with impunity?

Let’s take a couple of more examples: Can someone intentionally publish misleading information about drug dosages which leads to many people taking overdoses of a medication? Can someone intentionally publish inaccurate instructions on how to put a product together which cause injuries to the users? Can someone publish instruction on making home-made weapons? Once again, the arguments would be, “These things cause harm to the users”. But one could also argue that trashing a professional model’s reputation could cause her to lose work and therefore harm her financially. She would, of course, have to show that harm in a court case. But the problem in all those scenarios is that the publisher of the information has no responsibility at all if the publisher remains anonymous. If someone published the above mentioned information in print or spoke it in public, the source is easily identified. I believe that the internet is a valuable tool and cannot conceive of not having access to it but it should not be a wall of privacy for every ne’er do well on the planet to hide behind as they perform nefarious deeds. I also believe that Google and all other internet service providers have an obligation as citizens to not assist people in either committing crimes or causing intentional harm. To the person who made the comments, come out of your mother’s basement, step up to the plate and identify yourself. If you can’t take on a ninety five pound model, you are one sad sack of feces.