anonymous blogging, trolls, misogyny and ethics

[rm]

http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/is-it-ok-to-blog-about-this-woman-anonymously/

Chat amongst yourselves. I'm off to save the world (er, so not really, but let's pretend, okay?)

Comments

[browneyedgirl65.livejournal.com]

The anonymous commentary back in the 18th century was hardly limited to thoughtful, erudite, politically lofty discourse. Personal attacks and derogatory commentary were also flung back and forth. I think the main difference between then and now is the scale and speed of this type of discourse nowadays. But the meanness, the vituperousness, the hostility, has always been present.

I think anonymity on the internet can be proscribed in a fashion similar to freedom of speech: allowed except when it steps over the line. The courts established 'Fire' in a theater as an initial line (and yes, I'm aware it's still a bit of a doddle these days with shifting around, but the concept is what I'm after here) needs to be defined...your right to be anonymous is protected up till the point you hit the other person's nose.

I'm actually not sure if this particular story illustrates crossing the line or not (I really don't have the time, energy, or desire to read thru the stuff to make up my own mind) but I know that it's certainly crossed frequently elsewhere. In fact, 95% of my commenting on the web is anonymous, or pseudonymous, precisely to avoid personal targets of me in my own identity. I got more than enough of that in the early to mid nineties and it's much nicer with an anonymous presence instead, I can assure you.

While I chuckled at the last sentence in the article (its intent, I'm sure) I believe that lawsuit is without merit, as Google did not give up the person's identity until ordered to do so by a judge.