Overgovernment: Anonymous Commenting Edition
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Big Government
Is anonymous internet posting a good thing? There’s plenty of room to debate the question, weighing the potentially negative impact it has had on civility in political debate and society in general, versus the benefits of encouraging more speech and protecting people from retaliation for expressing their views. But just because something might be said to be harmful, doesn’t mean government ought to have a role in doing anything about it. This is one of those cases, though a number of New York Republicans seem to disagree:
Nearly half of the Republicans serving in the New York State Assembly have proposed legislation that would ban anonymous online comments.
If enacted, the legislation would require websites — including social networks and online newspapers — to remove all anonymous comments that are brought to the attention of administrators.
An anonymous comment could remain if the author “agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate.”
This awful idea is an affront to the very notion of free speech, and Wired humorously but devastatingly notes that this legislation would have banned the pseudonymous Federalist Papers from being distributed online.
The arguments given by the bills supporters are the legislative equivalent of burning down a house to kill termites. Consider this:
Republican state Assemblyman Jim Conte praised the legislation, writing that it would eliminate “mean-spirited and baseless political attacks that add nothing to the real debate.”
The legislation would “demand that those who spread rumor, conjecture or outright lies online be willing to come forward and defend the comments they post,” Republican Assemblywoman Claudia Tenney added. “We, as a society, have never expected anything less when potentially harmful words are put into print.”
But there are already satisfactory remedies to all of these supposed problems. The answer to bad speech is good speech. Mean-spirited and baseless attacks can be countered with fact-based rebuttals. Harmful lies, meanwhile, are covered under slander and libel laws, and even anonymous users can today be compelled to be revealed if they cross legal lines. There is, in other words, no rational basis for the legislation even if we ignore the issue of its unconstitutional and liberty-restricting nature.