[117579] in Cypherpunks
Re: "Posting Anonymously is the Sign of a Coward"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Anonymous)
Mon Sep 6 15:40:10 1999
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 21:16:28 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <199909061916.VAA22986@mail.replay.com>
From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
To: mail2news@basement.replay.com, mail2news@nym.alias.net,
cypherpunks@toad.com
Reply-To: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
gburnore@databasix.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote:
> >It's not going to detract from your credibility either; it simply has
> >no effect.
>
> THAT is simply not true. It does have an effect when other things are added.
Of course. Like the CONTENT of the post. Whining that "anonymous
posters are cowards" is an unjustified stereotype.
The identity of the poster is only relevant when the poster claims
some special status linked to his/her personal identity, either as
an expert in a certain field, or as an eyewitness to certain events.
Otherwise, if I say that 2+2=4, you can evaluate that the same way
whether I'm anonymous or not.
> If you post anonymously and say something harmless to anyone else, then yes,
> nothing changes by your anonymity. But, if you post something damaging to
> another person through an anonymous remailer that is patently false, it DOES
> change something. Posting anonymously to attack another human being while
> avoiding litigation is cowardice. Note I didn't say government, I said
> another human. Note I said litigation, not criminal prosecution.
First of all, "litigation" DOES involve the government, including
the court system and the government's police powers. Lawsuits often
involved ARMED agents of the government seizing property (like
computers) as "evidence". Avoiding litigation is not "cowardice".
It's called self preservation. The threat of harassment via the
threat of a frivolous lawsuit is a very intimidating reality.
Someone with deep enough pockets can bankrupt you via the courts,
even if you end up "winning".
Worse yet, the mere THREAT of being harassed by a bogus lawsuit is
sufficient to intimidate many into silence and to forfeit their free
speech rights by default. And it becomes more pernicious when the
threat is directed towards an innocent third party, like one's ISP,
who has as much to lose as you, and much less to gain, by standing
up to a legal bully and standing up for your rights.
Those arguing against anonymity in this thread are being
self-contradictory. If anonymous posts lack credibility, and nobody
believes that which is posted anonymously, then "anonymous libel"
would be an exercise in futility. No damages accrue, especially in
the alleged libel of a public figure, unless it is proved that
defamatory material was BELIEVED and the defamee's reputation harmed
as a consequence. Try proving that concerning a usenet post.
If that's your concern, what you should rather fear is people who
post so-called "libel" with "real" email addresses, such as those
freebie introductory AOHell accounts, and then never use them again.
How would you propose to trace such a person in order to sue him?
> Knowingly posting to defame another without proof of any kind while posting
> anonymously is cowardice. Can you honestly say you don't agree with that?
Defamation is a tort that you'd have to prove, and "knowingly" is
still another element of that for you to prove, if you choose to
make that accusation. But this is about the right to post
anonymously. That, of course *CAN* be abused, just like posting
from an ISP, calling on the phone, or mailing a letter can. But the
subject line is "Posting Anonymously is the Sign of a Coward" ...
not whether anonymous posters are always truthful or not.
