Liskula Cohen case reminder: Consider the source

August 31, 2009 by Kurt
Filed under: commenting, social media 
Liskula Cohen

Liskula Cohen

Recent developments in the Liskula Cohen/anonymous blogger/”skank” case have launched a round of comment in traditional and new media sites over the value of anonymous comment, whether the right to be anonymous is under attack and even whether courts should somehow tame the Internet.

Ultimately, I see the case as a reminder that increasingly, the web means readers must be discerning about the source. That doesn’t mean anonymous speech should be dismissed, ignored or banned.

In my own newsroom, at least one reporter has engaged me in discussions over the case, forwarding me “The Moral of the Story” blogger’s take on the case in The New York Times, which calls the kind of vile anonymous commenting we’re all familiar with a malignancy.

The importance of anonymous speech in our democracy has already been widely discussed. That the right to be anonymous would ever be at issue is ridiculous, though I will confess this right now: It’s very easy for me to don the rose-colored glasses on the subject. I’ve never been the victim of an anonymous attack on my character or my livelihood. I’ve not been denied business or opportunity because, unknown to me, someone made a flawed judgment of me based on a scurrilous, anonymous attack.

So anonymity isn’t going away. The fact that anonymous speakers can be help liable for their violations of law isn’t going to change; anonymous speakers always risk being exposed. That’s why John Doe cases are filed.

It seems to me that the biggest value of this case for the rest of us is a reminder to consider the source. When readers are faced with an anonymous comments, they have two choices.

First, they can judge them unworthy of attention because the author didn’t have the courage to sign them. Are the comments self-serving? Is there no discernable reason why they’re unsigned? Are they backed up with facts? Whose ax is being ground?

Second, they can judge the comments to be useful, helpful, informative, valuable. Do they serve some greater good? Do they advance a cause that is not the speaker’s own? Is there a legitimate reason why the speech should be unsigned? Are the comments well-supported? Is there a way to verify the claims made in the comments?

Yes, it means increasingly, we must depend on readers to be discerning, to apply some critical thinking skills when they’re faced with whether or not to believe an anonymous comment. Do you want to do business with or take opportunities from anyone who doesn’t have these skills? Or the decency to come to you when they find something disturbing — and anonymous — about you?

Here’s some of the recent items I’ve read on the subject.

Is It O.K. to Blog About This Woman Anonymously?
New York Times | August 25, 2009
Moral of the Story blog. Interesting take on the idea of anonymous comment. The writer comes down against it.

‘Skanky’ Blogging, Anonymity and What’s Right
Mediactive | August 26, 2009
Particularly fond of the point, “People who’d ban anonymity don’t seem to realize that it’s technically impossible unless we’re willing to turn over all of our communications in every venue to a central authority — a system that would herald the end of liberty.”

5 myths about the Liskula Cohen versus Google “skank” decision
ReputationDefender Blog | August 27, 2009
Nice summary of some of the issues that have been discussed in this case.

Kathleen Parker: Legal Showdowns of the Wild Worldwide Web
The Washington Post | August 26, 2009
At least she includes a mild defense of anonymous speech.

Maureen Dowd: Stung by the Perfect Sting
The New York Times | August 25, 2009
Honestly, I’m not sure what her point is, beyond lamenting the cowardice of some who speak anonymously online.

Related Posts:

Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!





blog comments powered by Disqus