Comment by jklowden

6 hours ago

Count me among those who think publishers should always know who they’re publishing. When law enforcement comes knocking, a warrant should be all they need. Meta can’t shrug and say they don’t know who Batman1964 is.

There’s nothing new in publishing anonymously, just ask George Elliot. What’s new is the notion that publishers have no liability. Social media companies do not claim to speak for themselves. They have no reporters, no sources to protect. They’re one giant “letters to the editor” section. They should know for whom they speak.

Whether or not a writer commits libel is for the courts to decide. Neither the writer nor publisher has the right to avoid responsibility by camouflage.

7 comments

jklowden

Reply
mpalmer  6 hours ago

Freedom of expression is inseparable from the right to privacy.

Should journalists be forced to reveal their sources if the subject of a claim sues for defamation?

  • rini17  5 hours ago

    Freedom of expression is not absolute and never was.

    Should everyone just shrug off anonymous hoaxes and hate speech?

    • itubaj  3 hours ago

      Yes. If, unfortunately, I need to live in only one of two scenarios, i.e.:

      1. I need to identify myself for everything on the internet because of said "hoaxes" and "hate speech";

      2. I don't need to identify myself anywhere on the internet, and let go of said "hoaxes" and "hate speech", but can have the right of saying anything that I need to say without fearing for my safety and the safety of my relatives due to the government;

      Then yes, I would prefer the second option without a blink. Unfortunately, for what we have seen in the last few decades, there is no intermediary option. The proverb is true: give them an inch, and they will take a mile.