Posted on 03/06/2011 11:35:44 AM PST by Silverfiddle
"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.)"
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.
If somebody wants to find you and has the means at their disposal, they can, despite practically all precautions. It would have to be a specific effort, though. Generally speaking, anonymity is not a problem to maintain unless and until you warrant such a specific effort.
I remember Stanley Fish, he was an English professor at a school in NC at one time and he was a major proponent of the Political Correctness movement back in the 1990’s !
Funny, some things don’t change much !
I think there’s a distinct difference between being anonymous to Joe Public, and being anonymous to Public Law.
The former is possible, and the latter is not.
Communication over the internet is NOTHING like communication in public. In public, you are physically protected by free speech laws (for now).
However, On the internet you are only protected by the quality and level of your internet security software. The same rights simply do not apply because they are not practically or effectively enforceable on the information superhighway.
Anyone who plans to engage in public debate or expression on the internet should understand this, and I think most do... so they take precautions to minimize their exposure to attacks. This is what the liberals do not like.
Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let the people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?
The goal of the statists is to destroy intellectual freedom and economic freedom. Destruction of intellectual freedom can be achieved by restricting freedom of speech on the internet and radio. Destruction of economic freedom can be achieved by anti-trust laws.
Here's what they're REALLY talking about - - Dan Rather - and themselves.
In short these guys don't care if what Dan Rather said about President Bush was truth or lie - they wanted Rather's words to stand because HE WAS IN THE ELITE CLUB of the MSM. Period. So they make a case - and as you say - back it up with nothing.
They want the power and prestige of yesteryear - a time when their opponents weren't able to talk back to them. ( Well, except with 'letters to the editor' - with them deciding which ones to publish - based on "space available" - yeah that one's a lie too)
The New York Times doesn't get something important - if they had clamped down on the internet when everyone was scared stiff of not being PC it might have worked. But that cat is out of the bag forever... If I had to put my name and address on each comment I make, I would say the same thing. I am not intimidated by those who want THEIR elitist speech to count for more than mine.
The New York Times hates the fact that people who don't order ink by the trainload can still be heard. Eff 'em.
Every fake scandal, every scurrilous attack on conservatives written by a progressive who proudly signs his or her name to the byline, always uses the source of their explosive mis-information as "Unnamed sources". "Sources deep within ....". "According to sources ...." then hide behind the First Amendment when told to name those "sources".
Frankly, I don't see the difference.
Well written ! Thanks.
I get some points of your argument. The problem with the internet IS indeed anonymity. Anyone over 30 with common sense knows that the world was a better place before the internet became a big thing. There’s a lot about it that has improved lives drastically. But this doesn’t outweigh the bad. There are no moral or social implications to being anonymous. Anonymous speech invalidates the legitimacy of valid opinions of identifiable people. Everyone has an identity. I don’t just mean a name and social security number. Our faces identify us. There is a reason for it. Anonymity reduces us to nothing. Sure, many of us may or may not have enough common sense to overlook certain comments. But that doesn’t justify anonymity. Anonymity makes it possible to have child porn websites, let children act immoral on websites like Stickam, breed collective hatred on Topix.com, and those are only a few examples. If everyone walked an internet journey the way they would in public, they would be identifiable at all times. They would think before they acted. Imagine the number of flaming comments that would vanish from the earth. Think about the ratio of good to bad. People that had something bad to say likely wouldn’t say anything. We would see more good on the internet. Right now its a big pile of crap.
Naturally, imposing rationed state-controlled health care on the masses and threatening to suppress opposing opinion through a “fairness doctrine” or some other means of "controlling" speech perfectly fits the modus operandi of Fuhrer Ubama and his handlers.
In other words, America’s Democrats are operating EXACTLY the same way the original version of their party operated in Germany in the 1930s.
Like your post.
Okay, I'm half-joking there but seriously, anonymity allows people to freely express opinions without fear of reprisals from vindictive employers or flat-out nut jobs. Anonymity also allows people to vent and rant to their heart's content.
To use your phrase, anyone over 30 with common sense knows to change the channel if they don't like what they're watching. Did you ever peruse the comments at one of those Sports Illustrated sites? Or check out Democrat Underground or some of those other lefty sites? The childishness and profanity is an immediate turnoff for normal people and they never go back again.
On the other hand, stick around here for awhile (welcome to Free Republic, by the way) and you will see mostly normal, traditional Americans offering well thought-out opinions among the smattering of genuinely funny comments and images. Sure, there's the occasional flames and snide retorts, but welcome to the real world.
FRegards,
LH
Excellent. That is the bottom line and you nailed it. The Democrat "mainstream" newsrooms no longer hold a monopoly on the selection and spin of the daily news and they continue to gnash their teeth over it.
I know a blogger who did some damage! Buckhead. ROTFLMAO at dan blather.
Some are more equal than others... /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.