Just Because Some People Are Jerks Online, It Doesn't Mean You Need To Repeal Safe Harbors For ISPs
from the thinking-logically dept
The NY Times recently had an odd review of a new book about anonymity online. The book, called The Offensive Internet, is a collection of essays from various legal scholars, apparently taking a look at the fact that (gasp!) some people are just nasty online. The review, by Stanley Fish, makes some claims that don't make much sense, either logically or legally. If his summaries of the book accurately reflect what was written, then it suggests that the professors might not really have a firm grasp on what they're talking about. For example, Fish notes that multiple authors in the book seem willing to toss out Section 230's safe harbors for third party service providers, because some anonymous commenters might be mean:An unconstrained marketplace of ideas is often said to facilitate informed decision-making by providing all the information, even erroneous information, that is out there. But how, asks Brian Leiter in a powerful essay, is the process of deliberation helped by the anonymous poster who reports falsely “that Jane Doe has herpes” and announces “that he would like to sodomize her?” The Internet and the real world, Leiter concludes, “would both be better places” if Internet providers were held accountable for the scurrilous and harmful material they disseminate.Later, Fish quotes others, with similar arguments:
Saul Levmore (Nussbaum’s co-editor) suggests that immunity might be conditioned on the willingness of a provider either to take down a message after notice of its falsity or defamatory character has been given, or “to enforce non-anonymity” and thus open the way for an injured party to seek redress. The law, writes Anupam Chander, “should allow the individual to find information to lead her to the person who committed the privacy invasion.” As it is now, with an expansive reading of Section 230, “the law no longer puts any obstacles in the way of the Sociopath” who, traveling on the Internet, can go anywhere and spray venom that lasts forever. (Leiter)Except, as Paul Levy points out in great detail in a response to Fish's column, if Fish accurately reported what these law professors wrote, then those law professors don't actually know the law.
They appear to be confusing anonymity with safe harbors for service providers. But there's nothing at all in Section 230 that forbids or prevents a person who has been wronged -- say via defamation -- from going to court and getting a service provider to identify an anonymous commenter. All the safe harbor does is prevent the service provider from being liable for the user's speech. But it does nothing to protect their anonymity. Arguing otherwise is simply wrong. As Levy notes:
Under current law, if actionable expression is communicated online, the victim of the statutory, tort or contract violation can sue the author for that expression, but can no more sue the host of the web site, or the provider of the email service, than he could sue the postal service for carrying a defamatory book or newspaper, or sue a library for lending such a book out. Moreover, even if the name of the author is not provided with the expression, generally speaking the host of a web site that contains offending content (or an email provider) maintains at least for a period of time the data that is needed to identify the author.In other words, the attack on Section 230 (if Fish is to be believed, mainly by law professor Brian Leiter) is woefully misplaced. He seems to be blaming safe harbors for third parties for the fact that some anonymous commenters can be jackasses. But the two things are unrelated.
That information can be subpoenaed from the host. And such a subpoena can be enforced by anybody who has a substantial claim of defamation or other actionable content. That is, they will succeed in the subpoena proceeding so long as they can identify the allegedly defamatory words about them, the words are actionable statements of facts and not just opinions, they have evidence of falsity and of damage, and there is no other reason to withhold identification, such as a real risk of extra-judicial retaliation.
Furthermore, I've noted in the past how misguided attacks on anonymity are. We've been running Techdirt for well over a dozen years and have always allowed anonymous comments. On the whole, we probably have just as many smart anonymous comments as we do smart "named" comments -- and the same is true of the annoying or abusive comments. To suggest that anonymity alone automatically leads to worse comments is a myth. It's something that some people want to believe, but there is little evidence to support it.
As I've said, we prefer that people identify themselves, because we like it, but we try to do that by offering positive reasons for people to identify themselves (if you're registered users there are various perks and such), but if people want to remain anonymous, that's fine too. But, the thing is, when someone does decide to comment anonymously, they are signaling something to the world, and part of that signal is often "this might not be as credible, so you might want to double check." So when the essays in this book complain about people making speech online anonymously, what they appear to be ignoring is the fact that such anonymous speech is already handicapped, in that it's a lot less believable on its face. For some reason, too often people seem to think that if someone says something, everyone automatically believes it. And that seems to be driving much of the conversation here, but it seems reasonable to go back and question that assumption.
In the end, there are lots of important benefits to anonymous speech. Yes, some people abuse it. But that's no reason to automatically throw out all the benefits of anonymous speech.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anonymity, free speech, jerks, section 230
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Some people...
Big furry deal.
It would be an affront to liberty and free speech to take away a person's right to be an asshole IRL, how is this in any way different online?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yet you are never shy to out anonymous posters, such as the additional of the snowflakes.
Section 230 (like DMCA) has been twisted in ways that it was never intended to do. DMCA is a license to steal (just remove the stuff when you get caught), and Section 230 is a license to libel / slander people like mad, knowing that the forum and service providers will hide out and in turn hide your sorry ass.
The result of Section 230 is that it has extended past the service provider, and created a shield around the sorts of people who need to have a day in court. It was never intended to shield past the service providers.
The current situation, much like the issues of DMCA, are not tolerable in the long term. As more and more people pop in to profit from these "exceptional" situations, it becomes clear that they each need narrower definitions and better controls (and obligations).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Irony Much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is your name "Snowflake" or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Naw its what his boyfriend calls him when he cross dresses ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, it just lets us know who's responsible for certain comments. Maybe you are less anonymous, but not by much in my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Two, under your definition if you speak then you're less then anonymous. You give out information about yourself every time you post anything. This is why we could tell some ACs from others even without the snowflakes.
You stated that posting here was like standing on a street corner with a name tag. You are wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1)Adding snowflakes doesn't do much to take away your anonymity. Just use a proxy.
2)Snowflakes are a valid addition to the site in that they help to encourage different sub-threads of speaking and argument in the same comment thread. Identifying which person you are speaking to in the context of the argument can matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I like the snowflakes for two reasons...1.) It keeps the thoughts separate in my brain (because after a while I cannot figure out who is talking.) I'll read one comment from Anonymous Coward that doesn't jive with another, and I get confused because the same person is saying two completely different things, and 2.) It cuts down on the sockpuppetry. I've gone back to discussions we've had here "pre-snowflake" and have found on quite a few occasions that comments I thought were made by two separate people turned out to be comments by the same person who was just very, very good at trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
TOR
I2P
Freenet
Just don't ever use JAP as it had a backdoor mandated by the German Government in 2003.
Net anonymity service back-doored (2003)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Anonymous sucker #1?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I like them, I can tell the difference between Anonymous Cowards. Remember, just because I don't post as "Anonymous Coward" doesn't mean I'm not posting anonymously. And just because I see a little snowflake doesn't mean you're not still as anonymous as you were before them.
"DMCA is a license to steal" "Section 230 is a license to libel"
You need to learn how the law works. Section 230 is just so people like Techdirt can't get into trouble for something you say. If you say something that bad, the offended party can get a court order and Techdirt will be required to turn over your personal information. Techdirt themselves cannot be sued, however.
The DMCA has been used to "steal" things. It allows big media to force perfectly legal sites and items offline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It is an outdated joke of a law that desperately needs to be updated, as it has obviously failed it's original purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Effectively, it creates a one way street, where people can throw all sorts of wild claims around online knowing that they cannot be found, and that the service hosting their comments / content will block any attempt to find out who they are.
In a society of free speech with responsiblity, this is a horrible disconnect. It was not the intention of the law to permit this sort of shield to extend past the service provider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So if you're going to be irresponsible with speech, make sure it has a fancy classification!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That line is going to bring out the fire in a theater crowd...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
All sorts of wild claims like anything free is substandard, you can't make any money offering things for free, or that 'stealing' content is the same as stealing a car?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Outing would imply they actually identify the anonymous posters. The snowflakes don't do anything other than offer a tool for identifying posts made by the same still-anonymous poster. It's not like the snowflakes are QR coded with your name or ip address.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In case you hadn't noticed, the snowflake isn't even the same when a single person comments from the same computer on two different stories. It's even different in the same article when it is read on different days. The snowflake is only the same if you are in the same article on the same day. It just helps others understand a particular individual's train of thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I fallow you I probably will get something to complain about because you know there are tens of thousands of laws some of them so old that they don't make sense today but are still in the books. You think your business is immune to the laws without protections and safeguards against accidental things?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Freaking trolls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The funny thing is: snowflake or not people will always recognize you by your tortured logic an bullshit comments. So no need to actually kow your name, is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interwebs & real-life culture are intertwined.
It could be likely that this would be fodder for a culture change where all communication online becomes passive-aggressive in nature.
What's curious is *HOW* these stupid laws would trickle don and change real-life, in-person communication and culture standards. We're already seeing a group of hipster folks wearing fedoras at area malls and the local thrift store.
So in 20 years will everybody be skin-deep and protective of giving meaningful feedback? It's important to understand cultural implications from a societal perspective before making legalistic changes.
Fortunately, Fish isn't a Sociologist so we can very quickly dismiss his drivel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Stanley Fish a flagbearer for Political Correctness?
The book appears to make a case for political correctness, using concepts from 14th and 16th century English Scholars such as John Skelton and John Milton.
Admittedly, I haven't read his works, but from what I could gather, he seems to desire returning to 16th century speech standards.
For further reading, I've included a link to his wikipedia Article: Citation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My points were about the Fish article. Which I did read.
And, no, it's not ridiculous.
maybe you should fucking read
I will take that under advisement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libelous content
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Libelous content
In the US Safe Harbors protects the third party from being sued. This does not protect them from a court order to remove the content in question. If the third party refuses to remove the content, then they are liable for the comment as well. In this hypothetical situation, the originating party doesn't even need to be found to force the third party to remove the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Libelous content
See http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/01/blockowicz_v_williams_online_p.html and http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2009/11/a_new_way_to_by.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Libelous content
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only difference is that, until now, one had to print a bunch of flyers and toss them around town.
I suppose a big difference here is that such action was more expensive. If that is the case, then a person saying internet anonymity is different and thus bad is really just saying
"people with more resources deserve anonymity, but poor people don’t"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a good reason to post anonymously. I want people to double check what I write.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think that's the stance Fish is taking
I've been following Fish's writings for a few months now, and I'll admit I was a little surprised to see one with this title in my RSS reader. But then I read it.
Fish admittedly spends most of the post talking about what the writers in The Offensive Internet wrote, leaving his opinions mostly out of it until the last couple paragraphs. He tends to try to paint a good picture of what he's talking about before stating his opinion, which can be a little misleading (at least to me). I did notice that Mike hasn't actually disagreed with anything Fish himself said, and this is rightly so.
Fish is actually agreeing with what Mike says here, though talking more on the side of free speech rather than anonymity. He's taken aback by how these law professors who "are by and large strong free-speech advocates" are willing to basically say things like "your speech is not as good as my speech, and therefore it shouldn't be protected."
Admittedly I haven't yet read Fish's book, There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech and It’s a Good Thing, Too, but I'm positive that it contains far more nuanced, reasonable arguments than its title implies, just like his Opinionator posts always do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]