Proposals to limit anonymous communications
on the Internet would violate free speech
rights long recognized by the Supreme Court.
Anonymous and pseudonymous speech played
a vital role in the founding of this country.
Thomas Paine's Common Sensewas first released
signed, "An Englishman." Alexander Hamilton,
John Jay, James Madison, Samuel Adams, and
others carried out the debate between
Federalists and Anti-Federalists using pseudonyms.
Today, human rights workers in China
and many other countries have reforged the link
between anonymity and free speech.
Given the importance of anonymity as a
component of free speech, the cost of banning
anonymous Internet speech would be enormous.
It makes no sense to treat Internet speech
differently from printed leaflets or books.
Anonymous communication
is seen as the cornerstone
of an Internet culture that
promotes sharing and free speech
and is overtly anti-establishment.
Anonymity, so the argument
goes, ensures governments
cannot spy on citizens and thus
guarantees privacy and free speech. The recommendations
of the American Association for the Advancement
of Science's conference on "Anonymous
Communication Policies for the Internet" [1] support
this view. Among the findings were that "online
anonymous communication is morally neutral" and
that "it should be considered a strong human and
constitutional right."
This view is fundamentally mistaken; by allowing
anonymous communication we actually risk an incremental
breakdown of the fabric of our society. The price
of our freedoms is not, I believe, anonymity, but
accountability. Unless individuals and, more importantly,
governments can be held accountable, we lose all
recourse to the law and hence risk our very freedom.
The following sections argue this in more detail and
suggest the only real solution is more openness, not less.