PressEthic

An article in the business section of the New York Times revealed that courts have offered protection to anonymous blog posters.

Mr and Mrs Cahill attempted to sue an anonymous blogger, Proud Citizen, for defamation. A Delaware Supreme Court Appeal sided with the blogger and his anonymity was preserved.

The article goes on to discuss the benefits of anonymity. Anonymity allows for free speech in that it protects those who are prepared to ‘ethically stand behind what they say, but might be in a position that they can’t afford to lose their house over it.’ People may not be prepared to make certain statements or reveal unknown truths if they have to put their name to it.

However this anonymity also protects those who make baseless defamatory statements. This does raise certain questions regarding libel and the internet. If anonymity is protected then surely anything can be said about almost any individual, which could have adverse affects for democracy. Slanderous statements could unfairly undermine political officials. Legal limits on free speech are also necessary to preserve a functioning democracy.

The Delaware Supreme Court did say:

We are concerned that setting the standard too low will chill potential posters from exercising their First Amendment right to speak anonymously.

While I’m no expert on US law, I’m assuming there will come a point that anonymity could be revoked if the statements made are damaging enough. Anonymity on the internet must be protected to a certain extent, in the name of free speech. However, just like all media, this freedom must be curtailed at some point by libel law. Obviously 'truth' must be the guiding principle. As long as you can prove your comments are based in fact, then anonymity should be granted.