Posted on 10/09/2005 9:40:05 PM PDT by smoothsailing
Good news, can't let them get control of the internet!
Leave no beeber unstuned.
You don't really have a free society (republic), if people cannot say the truth without fear and intimidation -- and essential to that truth is speaking without the need for anonymity. The anonymity permits abuses that posting and writing under one's true identity does not occur.
The biggest abusers are the newspapers -- claiming anonymity and confidentially as essential to their revelations -- that one can only speak the truth under anonymity -- which means there's no responsibility and accountability for their speech. I think that is misreading and misunderstanding of the essential element of free speech and the freedom to speak the truth.
Freedom of speech is the right to speak the truth -- and not have to hide the fact of who you are to do so. If you can only speak the truth anonymously and in fear of retribution, do we really have freedom of speech?
That is one of the great challenges of the broadcast media and the newspaper ethics. We're all grown up enough to realize how they manipulate information to say what it is they want to say, though polls, studies, sources they wish to reveal while suppressing others they don't want to get out. Anonymity allows them this opportunity for mischief. It is because there is total availability of information unedited, uncensored and unbiased like these forums and blogs, that there is a truer picture of the totality of information available -- and not just what the powers that be would like -- to maintain their monopolies.
Why shouldn't a person speaking truthfully and responsibly have to fear revealing their identities and the identities of their sources? It is merely a pretext for abusive speech, deception and manipulation.
One of the things I've always noticed about internet and other communications, is that legitimate people always reveal who they are, or don't try to hide that fact, while dishonest, unscrupulous, deceptive and fearful people use anonymity to misrepresent themselves and gain an advantage. For some people, the process of communications is for that purpose alone and always -- to gain an unfair advantage.
It would seem to be essential to the new paradigm of information that all the information is revealed so that one can make the best decision possible -- without the deception and manipulation characteristic of the old media.
Otherwise, we still have the same old problems of ignorance, misinformation and disinformation -- done better, and that's not our ultimate objective. We want to eliminate ignorance, misinformation and disinformation.
"You don't really have a free society (republic), if people cannot say the truth without fear and intimidation -- and essential to that truth is speaking without the need for anonymity."
I understand your point of view. Truth is Falsehood. Peace is War. Poverty is Wealth.
"Good news, can't let them get control of the internet!"
Indeed! Score own for our side.
"Score own for our side."
Score "one", I mean.
I wonder what Publius would have thought of that?
Are people trying to be famous, well-known, to know others?
Or do they wish to be unknown, anonymous, not to know others?
The mainstream media and establishment institutions have convinced people they cannot use this medium for that purpose -- but have to go through them so they can control whether you are well-known and famous. You're not going to be the President of the United States anonymously, as an unknown, so if you have anything worth saying, you have to disclaim it by your anonymity -- rather than it revealing who you are. That is the more valuable use of the internet or any media than to just be able to do anything you want, express yourself anonymously, reinforcing your anonymity.
Do you understand the irony? An artist wants to be known for what he does; he does not wish to pursue his art, his expression to confirm he is a nobody. Have you people really thought about this. I found it very peculiar the first time I learned about the Web and thought the premises most people used the Web for limited its usefulness and potential. That's still a problem today.
"One of the things I've always noticed about internet and other communications, is that legitimate people always reveal who they are, or don't try to hide that fact, while dishonest, unscrupulous, deceptive and fearful people use anonymity to misrepresent themselves and gain an advantage. For some people, the process of communications is for that purpose alone and always -- to gain an unfair advantage."
Then you will be horrified to find out that during the run-up to the American Revolution that many distibuted phamphlets promoting their views that the 13 Colonies should disassociated themselves from British rule anonymously will fictitious names! Heaven forbid that the Federalist papers should have been published to promote the adoption of the US Constitution by individuals who refused to use their real names while trying to influence public opinion.
Oh the shame, Publius...
dvwjr
They tried the wrong tactic. They should have claimed "hate speech" then they could have sicced the Feds on them.
It might have been necessary under repressive conditions to have to operate that way -- but in evolving towards "a more perfect society," we should be further along in not requiring anonymity and secrecy -- and information should not be treated as dynamite but as the air we breathe.
Obviously, where we want to be is a society in which all the information is available to everyone -- the open society -- rather than a closed and secretive society in which information is hoarded, manipulated and controlled -- characteristic of repressive regimes and conditions.
Presently, the media, schools and universities control these information pathways -- and others think they have to operate in secrecy and anonymity rather than that it is the birthright of every citizen to do so -- openly and freely. Unless those behaviors are embraced and manifested, we can never get to this more perfect society, as is the very reason for being of this society. It doesn't just happen or exist only as an ideal.
It happens when people behave that way as though that were the most natural and right way of being.
It should be increasingly obvious that what we don't need is simply more information but better information. That is the natural next step in the evolution process -- after there is critical mass and abundance that begins to overwhelm. We thus need to know early on, what is and who is credible and reliable sources, and which are manipulations, deceptions, confused understandings and motivations.
When people develop a real presence on the Internet or any forum, that expedites that process rather than one having to play time-consuming games, just because that is many people's idea of entertainment, amusement, and ego/power-trip. What the media, schools and universities don't want to see is the Internet become the "legitimate" media that subsumes all and relegates these formerly powerful and controlling institutions to the dustbins of history -- as is their unmistakable fate and destiny.
"It should be increasingly obvious that what we don't need is simply more information but better information. That is the natural next step in the evolution process"
Sounds like you're leaving for the perfect society, Mike.
I meant "moving toward" the perfect society.
Important issue precedent ping.
Anonymity will always be necessary as long as there are lawyers. The plaintiffs council, in this action, didn't advise his client that truth is necessary for a free society, or that the 1st. Amendment protects political speech and therefore the attorney refused to take the case because it was unconstitutional. No. The attorney took the plaintiffs money and proceeded to use the courts to suppress free speech. It's what they do.
Let's not confuse the issues.
The First Amendment does not protect against libelous, malicious, abusive and untrue statements and misrepresentations. Anonymity compounds that problem by encouraging such abuses -- that would be less likely speaking in one's true identity.
The problems of anonymity far outweigh the advantages -- if there are in fact any, except for criminal, malicious, and abusive purposes.
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.