[117598] in Cypherpunks
Re: "Posting Anonymously is the Sign of a Coward"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Roach)
Mon Sep 6 20:37:22 1999
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990906190412.008263b0@mail.intplsrv.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 19:04:12 -0500
To: cypherpunks@algebra.com
From: Sean Roach <roach_s@mail.intplsrv.net>
In-Reply-To: <199909061916.VAA22986@mail.replay.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To: Sean Roach <roach_s@mail.intplsrv.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
At 09:16 PM 9/6/99 +0200, Anonymous wrote: ">"
>gburnore@databasix.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote: ">>"
The points as I hit them.
...
>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.
Then it is still suspect. How are you to know my name is Sean?
Perhaps that is just a more believable fiction that I cooked up for
this list than the names of Petro, Secret Squirrel, or Zombe Cow?
If I Set up a persona that I can reliably prove is me, such as, I
think, Secret Squirrel has done, and build a reputation around it,
then what I say is as valid, or as invalid, as what I may say to you
in person.
>> 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.
>
Perhaps it should instead be said that, to post anonymously is to say
you perceive that you have something to loose. If you are doing so
to attack another, then you are either afraid of retribution because
your target, or h[is/er] allies, would have no trouble with squashing
you, or because you recognize that you are committing some act, which
rather you agree or not, is preceived by a majority of the vocal,
which is not to say a vocal majority, to be immoral.
Sean Roach
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBN9RWfJHDoiHtqFDZEQKUxACfezZ9y7AWTPucbo61W3p07lP5Nf4AnjZf
jbqa4a/6bkdqJDIg3wfBo9xE
=AsRQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
