Freedom of Speech in the Internet Age- Part II

Over at Blue Hampshire, JimC is upset at the radio host Howie Carr is trying to find out the identity of an anonymous critic, and has offered a $2,000 reward.

Like I said on BMG, this is a classless move, and I think it's a freedom of the press issue.

Some background: the state GOP sued over the Senate appointment law. A judge quickly ruled against them, and Howie Carr (recently described by Dan Kennedy as the Bill O'Reilly of Boston media) wrote a column attacking the judge.

"Ernie Boch III" wrote a blog post calling for a boycott of Carr's advertisers. (It was atypical of him; EBIII is usually snarky.) Yesterday morning, the lead story in the Herald was Carr's column attacking EBIII for "posing" as someone else. And yesterday afternoon, on Carr's radio show, Boch offered the reward.

The pose rhetoric is an absurd charge. There is no Ernie Boch III to pose as; it is a joke as recognizable as the Sons of Sam Horn, a Red Sox blog.

I suspect that Howie Carr and Ernie Boch Jr. think this is all a big joke, but $2,000 is enough to draw a crazy person, and this is sponsored press harassment.

JimC and I had a little colloquy about anonymity and the Internet back in August, but that case involved a court order in a possible defamation case.

There is no First Amendment issue here, because there is no government involvement. Whether this case is an attack of press freedom apart from the First Amendment is a separate question, but I still don't think it rises to a threat on journalism.

Ernie Boch III has every right to withhold his identity. However, he can't force others to not care who he is, or take steps to find out. JimC seems to think that the act of criticism itself shields the anonymous blogger from counter-criticism, or from his targets wanting to know more about who's attacking them.

I've never seen any real distinction between freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I'm happy to give Ernie Boch III the same rights as the New York Times. Okay, bad example. Make that the same rights as a trusted journalist. Discovering the identity of anonymous bloggers may be considered bad form in the blogosphere, but it's certainly not a threat to free speech. They have a right to shout from behind the curtain, and I have a right to peak behind the curtain. Why should my rights yield to the anonymous blogger? Privacy? Certainly not. You can't walk through a public park and then forbid everyone else from looking at you.

I respect the right of people to withhold their identity when they post their opinions online. But I discount what they say somewhat because of it. If I don't know where they are coming from, and what biases and allegiances they bring to the table, I trust them less. I've chosen to put my name under all of my online activities, whether it be here, at Red Hampshire, Facebook, or rarely in the comment threads of other blogs. My history and biases are there for Google and all the world to see, and I think it makes my words more credible. But that's my choice.

The source of the $2,000 reward is the anonymous blogger's use of another man's name. Ernie Boch Jr. doesn't like that someone is his name to push ideas he disagrees with. He's got every right to be upset. It's a slimy thing to do, but certainly not illegal. If Boch or Carr were going to court to make the blogger's identity public or make him change his nom-de-blog, I'd side with JimC on this.

Ironically, this issue started when Ernie Boch III called for a boycott of Carr's advertisers because he doesn't like what Carr is saying. By JimC's logic, this is a greater threat to press freedom than Carr's $2,000 reward. Of course, it's not. As always, the cure for bad speech is more speech.

Freedom of Speech in the Internet Age

Interesting post over at BlueHampshire regarding a defamation case involving a Vogue cover model, Google, and a sharp-tounged blogger. Here's the original story at Media Bistro.

Under court order, Google has just handed over the IP address of the user of Blogger (a Google service) who had posted some very unkind things about Vogue cover model Liskula Cohen on a blog called "Skanks in NYC," including photo captions referring to her as the "Skankiest in NYC" and a "psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank."

Cohen had asked Google for the information, so she could sue the author for defamation. Google had refused, citing the company's privacy policy (though it did take down the blog). Cohen's attorney's brought the matter to court. On Monday, a New York Supreme Court justice batted down the anonymous blogger's contention that the bons mot were mere opinion and instead, according to the Guardian (UK), "found Cohen may insist in a suit that the statements are factually inaccurate." (more)

BlueHampshire poster JimC paints the story as an attack on press freedom and slams Google for turning over the blogger's information, rather than appealing the court order. Google initially fought the disclosure, citing its privacy policy. The real issue here is the New York Supreme Court's decision that calling someone names in not a matter of opinion, but a fact that can be refuted in court. How would one go about proving one is not a "skank"?

In fact, Cohen hasn't even filed a libel or defamation suit yet. So what grounds does she have to force this disclosure? I've been called plenty of names in the past, often by anonymous web posters. I never thought of going to court.

Lynch loses BlueHampshire on Mortgage Tax

BlueHampshire's Dean Barker posts his opposition to the Lynch Mortgage Tax:

This idea is a policy loser. Responsible middle-class families struggling with rising costs of everything are heeding the President's economic rescue plan and moving to re-finance to lower rates. This puts more money in their pocket to pay the bills and maybe even stimulate the economy a little. But one of the biggest obstacles to getting those families to re-finance are the up-front one time costs associated with that.

Blue Hampshire: When does "New Media" cross into "major nuisance"?

Over at BlueHampshire, Zandra Rice Hawkins debates herself as to whether independent journalists working for think-tanks should be allowed access to state government:

As someone with an organization that routinely films political activity in the state for the benefit of our members, I try to gain access wherever I can. But I don't purport that I'm speaking for new media advocates when I'm asked to move to the gallery. Instead, I'd rather leave that space and make the case for new media that's reporting for general public interest rather than an organizational view.

Obviously, we disagree with Rice Hawkin's line in the sand. We would prefer to be judged by the quality our of work at the Josiah Bartlett Center and at NH Watchdog. At a time when traditional media organizations are cutting back on State House coverage, we are stepping in to fill the gap. The First Amendment has no requirement that the press have no opinions. We prefer to let people know that we are in favor of free markets and smaller government, and let our coverage speak for itself.