In defense of anonymity

By Francis Somsel

January 10, 2007

"Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation at the hand of an intolerant society."
- Supreme Court - McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission

There has been some talk about the alleged identities of several posters on local internet chat boards. I thought that the issue was dead and buried, but a recent conversation changed my opinion on the matter. So, as a former moderator on both The Wall and The Junto, I thought it my responsibility to comment.

As many of you may know, there are thousands of chat boards on the internet where people discuss politics, sports, movies, sex, video games, music, or just about anything that you could possibly be interested in. Most of these message boards are national or international in nature, as the internet has no borders. Therefore, even if you logged in with your real name (which few do), you are, for all intents and purposes, anonymous.

The great thing about being anonymous is that you can basically say exactly what is on your mind without fear of retribution or consequence from your employer, your coworkers, neighbors, etc. The internet may have been designed to assist communication, but anonymity empowers it. In fact, the courts have already said this. In Doe v. 2TheMart.com Inc. they stated that "The free exchange of ideas on the internet is driven in large part by the ability of internet users to communicate anonymously . . . If internet users could be stripped of that anonymity . . . this would have a significant chilling effect on internet communications and thus on basic First Amendment rights."

If the upside of anonymity is that you can say anything you want, the downside is that people actually do say anything they want. Some people are, to put it mildly, not very nice. On many chat boards conversations can quickly degenerate into name calling between two or more posters that disagree with each other. This behavior is not only rude and uncivil, but it also effectively serves to end the discussion.

I tend to imagine a chat board as a cocktail party where people are talking politics. When one of the partygoers starts yelling and screaming at another, any conversation that remains is usually about the altercation. This is death to a chat board or a cocktail party. As a good moderator (or party host) it is your job to put a stop to this as quickly as possible so that conversation can resume.

Our local political chat boards, The Wall and The Junto, are dedicated primarily to politics in San Francisco, even though national and international topics do come up. Because of this, almost all of the people that post on the 'The Wall' and 'The Junto' are local to San Francisco. San Francisco is, by internet standards, a relatively small community.

Just to give you an idea of exactly how small that number is, there are less than 600 people that have signed up as "members" on both boards combined. Since some people are members on both and some have multiple screen names (I used to go by francisd5, then francisd3 when I moved, and I also have the name 7seconddelay which I used for moderating), the actual number is probably closer to 200 or 250. Between the two boards there are probably less than 30 people that post on a regular basis and for a total of about 100 posts per day. Not a huge amount of activity. Basically, it's a small party.

Then there are the "lurkers". These are people that come in and check out the debates (or "threads") but don't post. There are probably two to three times more lurkers than posters. Far more people read Fog City Joournal, for example, than lurk on our little chat boards. So, no matter what is said in these boards, it really isn't that big of a deal. Chances are that anything that is said is not going to change any policy decisions, any campaign decisions, or even change anyone's opinion.

Therefore, when others complain to me that some people that are involved in local government are using The Wall or The Junto for political gain by intentionally spreading false information about their opponents, it cracks me up. If that does happen (and I'm not certain that it does), not only is it a waste of time and energy considering the small number of people they are reaching, but also the audience they are hitting is a deeply opinionated one that is not likely to change its mind about any political figure in question.

Basically, it's a tempest in a teapot.

However, the action taken to threaten the outing of posters is the absolute worst thing anyone could possibly do to our little chat boards, the internet, and the first amendment.

The worst form of personal attack on The Wall or The Junto is to "out" someone or to threaten to "out" someone. This is a cardinal sin and the offender is usually immediately removed from the chat board. The only reason that outing is done is to bully or intimidate someone into shutting up. This is exactly what has happened. Not only have several posters stopped their online activities, the number of daily posts have declined as well.

So, a very small number of well-placed words in a few online columns sent shock waves through the online community here in San Francisco. I was inclined to let the incident fade into the forgotten past and let the boards recover, but when I discovered that the issue was still a hot topic that may come up again, I felt compelled to address it.

To anyone that might attempt to "out" anonymous posters on internet chat boards, please remember a couple of things:

First, when you do something like this, not only does it hurt the person you are outing, it hurts everyone else that posts online. When you threaten anonymity of posters, all posters become fearful, not just the ones you are targeting. If the government or a corporation did this, you would be pissed off. Anger at someone for his or her real or perceived online indiscretions is not reason enough to hurt everyone that would post anonymously online.

Secondly, governments, corporations and individuals have actually gone after people for their anonymous activities and the courts have ruled "an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment." (McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission. (1995)). This is one of many rulings supporting internet anonymity. So, even if you feel you are on the side of the righteous, the courts have determined that you are not.

Finally, I want everyone to remember the lessons of our Founding Fathers. The very Federalist Papers that discussed and debated the Constitution and its amendments were written anonymously. The first and fourth amendments were designed in reaction to British sedition laws that allowed for the punishment of anonymous writers and unwarranted searches to discover their identities. Combined, these two amendments give people the right to privacy which is something that the courts have ruled is being violated when anonymous online identities are disclosed against that person's will.

So, in my mind, as a former moderator of The Junto and The Wall, I view threatened attempts to "out" members, regardless of the reason or purpose, as akin to jackbooted thugs destroying a printing press. If you really believe in freedom of speech, the same freedom of speech that allows us to publish these columns and to be critical of our government, our corporations, and our public figures, then please don't ruin it by threatening anonymous writers on our local internet chat boards.

Francis Somsel has a degree in History from U.C. Berkeley, and is active in San Francisco politics. In 2004, he ran for Supervisor in District 5 as a moderate Democrat. He worked as a financial advisor for many years, and is currently self-employed. He has lived in the Bay Area for nearly 30 years and currently lives in North Beach with his wife, a writer, and all her shoes. Email Francis at fsomsel@yahoo.com.

Editor's Note: Views expressed by columnists published on FogCityJournal.com are not necessarily the views or beliefs of Fog City Journal. Fog City Journal supports free speech in all its varied forms and provides a forum for a complete spectrum of viewpoints.

####