To the Editor:
Julie Zhuo’s argument against anonymity on the Internet (“Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt,” Op-Ed, Nov. 30) does not recognize the long American tradition of anonymous speech and the very real benefits of permitting people to express themselves without revealing their identity.
Anonymous speech is not new or unique to the Internet. To the contrary, it has played an important role in our history. Even the Federalist Papers were written under a pseudonym (Publius).
As the Supreme Court has explained, anonymity provides “a shield from the tyranny of the majority.” People have long relied on this protection to criticize popular ideas or oppressive practices without fear of retaliation.
No one would argue that authors should be prohibited from publishing books anonymously; the Internet shouldn’t be treated differently. There will always be people who abuse anonymity, but people abuse all sorts of things that we wouldn’t want banned.
Anonymity permits people to say things that they might not otherwise say. That’s a good thing, even if we don’t always like what they say.
Aden Fine
New York, Nov. 30, 2010
The writer is a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union Speech, Privacy and Technology Project.
To the Editor:
Julie Zhuo’s article is a needed challenge to nameless online “trolls” and to the news executives who betray journalistic ideals of accuracy and accountability by enabling the spread of cowardice and contumely without responsibility for consequences.
Newspapers require that letter writers sign their comments for publication in their print editions. The same rule should apply to comments in the online editions of the nation’s newspapers.
When newsrooms across this nation are often understaffed and overextended, stories can go unreported while editors must play “whack-a-troll” monitoring anonymous online comments.
Such comments only harm the already shaky credibility of American media by fostering mendacity and misinformation. As the former New York Times publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger once said, “Along with responsible newspapers we must have responsible readers.”
Ed Tant
Athens, Ga., Nov. 30, 2010
The writer is a columnist for The Athens Banner-Herald.
To the Editor:
Everybody has a right to free speech, but it seems that the Internet has opened the doors to a worrisome accumulation of irresponsible speech.
As I scan through user comments in news Web sites, I see that there are too many misguided, ignorant and even vicious comments, mostly from anonymous users.
I completely agree with Julie Zhuo that the Internet should try to replicate real-world social norms and that users should be held accountable.
As the saying goes: “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.” But if users wish to remove all doubt, they should be required to identify themselves. Maybe that will make them think twice about what they are about to write.
Darienne Gutierrez
Washington, Dec. 1, 2010
To the Editor:
International diplomacy is not the Internet and the State Department is not Facebook, but if the many commenters exposed by WikiLeaks had known that their assumed anonymity might be denied, they would have refined their messages or not transmitted them at all.
In these volatile times, at home and abroad, Abraham Lincoln’s words from his speech to Congress in 1862 applies to all of us—trolls, diplomats, politicians and angry voters alike:
“In times like the present men should utter nothing for which they would not willingly be responsible through time and in eternity.”
David L. Evans
Cambridge, Mass., Nov. 30, 2010
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 