Comments on: Asymmetric personal warfare

By: LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® » Blog Archive » Anonymous penumbras; submerged emanations

Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:20:00 +0000

[...] Maybe that’s why we’re not-so-pro-choice here. (We happen to reject the nomenclature anyway so don’t get us started.) Not “everybody” should have “the right to” Internet anonymity. We’ve long objected to the anonymity premise, because because not nearly enough weight is assigned its potential costs in a modern communication regime, as opposed to in the pre-Internet era. [...]

By: “Radical Transparency” « Likelihood of Success

“Radical Transparency” « Likelihood of Success — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 04:35:37 +0000

[...] is a narrow bridgeNot just the fattestThe Nazi mascotChutzpah!The free market fallacyWho?PhenomAsymmetric personal warfarePetra rocks!Find that [...]

By: Tech LawForum » Online Defamation and Radical Transparency

Tech LawForum » Online Defamation and Radical Transparency — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 03:24:01 +0000

[...] Coleman describes these anonymous hit-and-run incidents as a form of “asymmetric personal warfare” in which the slanderer has all the advantages, and can leave a trail of wreckage [...]

By: jaymaster

jaymaster — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 04:15:55 +0000

I have mixed feelings about your assertions here. Considering the preponderance of evidence frame of reference that you live in, I will agree with your assertion that this stuff MIGHT be a problem worth worrying about. By maybe 52% to 48%.

But I don’t understand your claim that this stuff is being institutionalized. It still just seems like gossip to me.

By: Ron Coleman

Ron Coleman — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:10:31 +0000

As you know, John, anonymous speech is not given special protection. It is given the same level of protection; anonymity itself is also protected. This of course is a gloss on the First Amendment. There is no mention of anonymity in the Constitution, nor of the virtually unmeetable actual malice test, which the Republic managed without for most of its life.

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:05:15 +0000

Well, anonymous speech is specifically protected by the USSC (See here, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission for political speech).

If the speech involved crosses the line into slander, there are laws to address that, including the legally enforced breaching of anonymity by an ISP on the part of a plaintiff. That strikes me as adequate protection of repute.

I do understand that there’s no practical way to ‘unring a bell’. But one can seek damages to help assuage the pain. And perhaps part or all of the damages could be used to pay for an advertising campaign to counter the defamation. This is, of course, the remedy for identified speed already.

By: Ron Coleman

Ron Coleman — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:00:12 +0000

None, Tearfree. But I know plenty who have sued, and who have approached me professionally to discuss suing, because of genuine anguish and damage that has been done to them by Internet defamation. I don’t know how many lives you think have to be — okay, not destroyed, but harmed — to make the problem cognizable.

There is no legal resource against the anonymous, unless and until their anonymity is stripped. Sometimes the law helps you do that. Sometimes it can’t, or won’t.

By: Tearfree

Tearfree — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:54:26 +0000

How many people do you know who’ve sued over something written on a bathroom wall?

I think you exaggerate the number of “lives destroyed” by this kind of stuff. In most cases, it is unpleasant but trivial and fairly easily addressed.

And when it is truly serious, there is indeed legal recourse as there always has been.

Anonymous speech is and always has been, however, an important part of free speech.

By: Ron Coleman

Ron Coleman — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:39:30 +0000

Why doesn’t my solution “work for” you, TF?

I don’t need to make a leap — it doesn’t matter what exactly happened this time. I’m talking about the entire phenomenon. If you don’t think real people are being hurt by it, you are mistaken.

I’d go with “maybe not.” It almost doesn’t matter if it’s believed. It’s out there forever. The smudge may never come off.

You have chosen to maintain your anonymity on the Internet. Maybe that’s a solution. We’ll all be anonymous so no one can say anything about us!

By: Tearfree

Tearfree — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:36:44 +0000

Hmm, I don’t know. It’s not clear at all that those nasty posts were the reasons that woman didn’t get the job. You’ve made quite a big leap there.

I’m really torn on this one because I know it’s not pleasant to have dirt out there, number one on google.

But is there a solution? Yours doesn’t work for me.

Maybe when everyone’s dirt is googleable, people will stop believing this anonymous stuff.

Or maybe not.

IN any case, another poster over at Althouse makes the point that at least these days we know what’s being said about us whereas in the past you often didn’t.