On Banning the Anonymi

You've probably read where a Kentucky legislator has proposed a state bill that would make it illegal, at least in Kentucky, to comment anonymously on the Internet. As I understand it, states can't make laws to regulate Internet activity, but besides that, it's an interesting thought, isn't it?

It is considered good practice to keep a couple of email accounts with fake names, for when you request something online and think there's a chance you'll get on somebody's list or something, or for when you just want to get some information without revealing your identity. Yahoo, Hotmail, places like that might have more email accounts than the population of the entire earth. I can think of four Gmail accounts that I have set up. I don't use them very often, but they're there if I need them.

Almost everybody uses a pseudonym when they sign up for chat rooms, instant messaging, online forums, and even blog comments. I use "JimK" on the blog, and everybody who cares to know can figure out who that is, but we have plenty of people who comment here without giving us any idea who they are.

And then there are the ones who just use the default "Anonymous" name. We have had our Anonymi almost since the day this site started. I don't know what force of nature drives this, but there is a certain kind of person -- and there have been a number of them over the years -- who come here to insult people and argue. Technically they are known as "rightwing trolls." I have only ever had to ban one person from this site, and it was somebody we called "Illiterate Anon." The other rightwing trolls serve a function for us, they say things that kind of prove why there needs to be a TeachTheFacts.org. Sometimes people accuse us of making these characters up, they say such crazy, inflammatory, and bigoted stuff, and in fact it is most humorous when one Anon accuses us of making up another Anon. In case you're wondering, no, we don't have to make them up. They appear on their own.

Some lefties use the Anonymous login, but not very many, at least on this site. Most people use a pseudonym of some sort, but they retain it over time so that other people know who they are. It's nice when you can quote somebody's previous statement back to them, or tie their point of view together. And there is nothing as disconcerting as having some troll say, "That wasn't me, that was a different Anon who said that." You kind of don't respect them when they can't even take the extra two seconds to give themselves a name. Just as bad, when they sign with a different name all the time, a person without an identity, great.

A bill filed in the House would keep Kentuckians from posting anonymous comments to Web sites.

House Bill 775, filed Tuesday by Rep. Tim Couch, R-Hyden, would require anyone who contributes to a Web site to register a real name, address and e-mail address with that Web site. The person's full name then would be used whenever he or she posted a comment.

Web site operators who violate the disclosure law would be fined $500 for a first offense and $1,000 for each subsequent offense.

Couch readily acknowledged on Wednesday that his bill raises First Amendment issues regarding free speech, so he won't be pushing it. But he wanted to call attention to the phenomenon of unkind and often untrue comments about people being posted online by Kentuckians hiding behind the cloak of anonymity.

"Some nasty things have been said about high school kids in my district, usually by other kids," Couch said. "The adults get in on it, too." Anonymous Web postings targeted

It's true the MySpace world gets pretty nasty at times, though in general the experience seems to be positive. Now and then you hear about threats and bullying incidents, well you're talking about teenagers, they can get out of hand. Mainly it's a self-regulating system.

Years ago I commented on a conservative site, a pro-war site, using a pseudonym. Those guys would get so mad at me, they called me every name in the book, I was an incestuous child-molester for opposing the war. And they did everything they could to put the pieces together to figure out who I was. One guy finally did, but he was cool about it, he emailed me and told me but never told the others. I was actually really glad that they couldn't figure out who I was. I was expressing a point of view that a lot of people shared, but I really do think there could have been some danger to my home and my family if my identity were revealed.

You don't hear much about it, but one of the things that really makes the Internet useful is the anonymity it seems to provide -- I say "seems to" because it turns out you are rarely truly anonymous, somebody can always figure out who you are. It's funny, the Internet doesn't just give you access to information, it gives you anonymous access, you can look things up without anyone knowing. Recently Facebook committed a major faux pas when they started putting information on people's sites about their online purchases. Some people were surprised to find out what their friends were into, you might say. You order something online, you know you're just talking to a computer, your information goes into a database, an order sends a forklift into a warehouse, a box is wrapped up, nobody anywhere in the chain knows who you are or what you bought. And then Facebook goes and puts it on your web page, the exact model of vibrator you got, or your subscription to Gay Times, if there is such a thing. The privacy of online shopping is a big part of it.

"When you're anonymous, you can say anything you want to about someone, and nobody knows who you are," he said.

Couch said he, too, has been the subject of anonymous online roasting, and while he doesn't enjoy it, he doesn't think there's much the legislature can do about it.

"I think right now (online posting) is pretty much just on its own. It's a machine that's going to go its own way," Couch said. "The state can try to pass some rules, but I don't really think it would do anything."

I don't really understand why this guy files a bill he knows will never pass, doing something he knows will never happen. To me it seems he is just saying that he fundamentally doesn't understand human nature or how the Internet works. I suppose he is free to make that statement, but why?