Harassment And Hate Speech

Harassment and hate speech seems to be the primary reason given to reduce the protection of anonymous free speech, because the thinking behind this is if consequences could follow someone and what they say, that it would discourage people that would try to harass others. An argument for anonymity however is the principle that if one is speaking out against an idea or to express an opinion, they should not feel negative consequence to this, being things like social ostracizing. Both arguments hold weight but ultimately it becomes an issue that is usually resolved by external affairs, like local governments. In the United States anonymous free speech as a citizen in the real world is protected under the First Amendment. In the United States a
verdict was reach to extend protection to anonymous speech, from a legal ruling in Arizona cited by Ringland “the First Amendment safeguards the right of anonymous speech … the Supreme Court stated ‘an author's decision to remain anonymous … is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.’” This case helped extended more rights, even though it created a decision to examine each case on a case-by-case basis. One of the hardest concepts to grasp though when dealing with anonymity on the Internet, is the ambiguity surrounding it. When anonymity is looked at from a technical perspective, is true anonymity possible? The answer being it is possible to be anonymous enough in practice. Anonymity on the Internet is really a “catch-22.” The Internet and the culture surrounding seem to promote a sense of anonymity, or obscured identity, but no one can truly rely on that anonymity either. Anonymity is not guaranteed online; it is important to realize this as it means even if in some cases protection might be granted it is not a constant protection.