The blogosphere is buzzing about losing its anonymous co-authors. A few days ago a Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge said that internet anonymity shouldn’t be a shield for legal actions. One possible read of such a statement is that there are those out there who would like to create a new legal supermarket (open season if you will) based on potentially libelous commentators to electronic media. This is iffy material that goes against one of this society’s most fundamental rights. That is, to communicate freely, anonymously or not. Our local bloggers have posted their thoughts about it here:
http://chrisschnurr.wordpress.com/2010/04/20/censorship-or-corporate-responsiblity/
and here:
http://windsorcityon.blogspot.com/2010/04/anonymity-on-web.html
It is completely understandable why one blogger chooses not to post comments and why another wishes to qualify them. It’s about varying degrees of comfort. All might agree though that it would be a lot more fun and engaging if the forums allowed for a freer and fuller banter from our anonymous guest speakers.
The legal eagles can distort this “anonymity” thing as far out of kilter as they wish but in this bloggers book it is they and their plaintiff friends who do more harm to honest and open communication than any blogger or anonymous commentator. By opening litigation the plaintiffs are either trying to hide something or to gain something by their actions. They only make themselves appear more suspicious and indeed self serving. By snuffing out any form of free dialogue they are committing an even greater injustice.
Wrong or right, “comments” in this forum are wide open. The policy as stated on this blog is very informal and simple:
“A reminder from M.O.M: Before submitting, review the post to ensure your comment is on topic. Profanity is discouraged. TRY TO RESPECT PEOPLES IDENTITY AND PRIVACY! Take your flamewars to private email. Thank you.”
In all of the years that this blog has been up only three comments were disallowed and they were all language related. Blog readers seem to get it and they are a reasonable and respectful lot. It appears to be the same in other local blog forums. Some agree with the things that are written and others aim square for the space between the eyes. In all instances they are talking to the blogger and to the forum so all is good.
Comments are the building blocks of blogs. They are added value and resource. The next thought. They tell us if we are on track and whether there is any sort of consensus. They remind us that we live in a free and democratic society. Without them we have no alternative perspectives and without other points of view we cannot grow and expand on the ideas generated within the ongoing dialogue. That is the “good” that comes from commentary whether it is anonymous or not. So in the end we have to ask ourselves a more fundamental question:
If we are not allowed to utter our thoughts can we forgive ourselves for the silence?
Anon
5 comments:
Respectfully, MOM - I'll stop moderating my comments if someone wants to pay any potential legal bills :)
U up for it?
There is also, I'll add, a huge difference between moderation (deleting questionable content that makes unsubstantiated claims or allegations) and moderating the language used; or calling an elected official a nazi - which is what I do.
I won't be held responsible for someone else's "right" to free speech.
And if someone were to libel me, and I lost my job because of that, yes your darn right I have something to lose and will vigourously seek damages for that. Google lawsuits against bloggers.
One can dismiss the litigator with something to hide, but it doesn't change the fact the suit still happens - to the tune of $15.7 million US so far.
Yes - most commentators on the blogs are responsible.
But the handful with axes to grind actually do more to curb free speech than to celebrate it through their irresponsible commentary - which I will neither defend nor allow on my blog.
For discussion and/or info:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2009/2009scc61/2009scc61.pdf
Chris...
You know that I cannot argue against your logic and especially the case studies you directed us to. Very telling. Before I expand on that though, it just dawned on me that "Anonymous" is a collective identity. Perhaps not unlike a union membership. A thought or comment that comes from the collective foreconscience.
I like to think that I have the capacity and the good nature to listen to the comments and to accept or reject them within the context of the discussion. No further than that. Comments do not bother me for the most part and like all other bloggers one developes some pretty thick skin.
Aside from that we have to look at the thickness and density of all combined social media. It might be fairly safe in here after all.
One last thing. From a couple of the case studiees in question it becomes very apparent how vicious and mean spirited some of these plaintiffs can be.
*FART*
Post a Comment