Hacker News Reader

Comment by Locke | Hacker News Reader

I'm not convinced there was anything illegal about the threatening / abusive postings. I think we need to be careful about protecting our freedom of speech.

However, I'm very happy that those individuals who were identified have faced social repercussions for their behavior. I would not want anything to do with any of those posters. If I were hiring, I wouldn't hire any of them. I would probably boycott any businesses that work with them. If they're free to be jerks, I'm free take my business elsewhere.

Therein lies the more interesting issue. Anonymity. It's hard to exert social pressure on bad behavior if you can't identify the people involved. Do we have a right to be anonymous online? Do the pros outweigh the cons?

I really don't know...

View on HN

I think the defendants of this case deserve a lot more sympathy than they're getting. The types of remarks you make when you're an anonymous dude on a message board of only marginal repute are not the same types of remarks you make when your name and identity are known.

There's an argument for removing the ability to be anonymous, but I think it's pretty much superior to allow people to hide their identity, but take their statements with all of the doubt that you would an anonymous, gossipy rumor. Trolls will be trolls, and the best thing to do is ignore them, not try to out them and ruin their professional lives.

I would remark that the punishment of the defendants has been uneven and had more to do with whose identities were recoverable than who did anything wrong. About half the defendants were people who made one off-hand comment (e.g. "Get in line") and are now suffering extremely disproportionate consequences. Ciolli (Great Teacher Onizuka) didn't even take part in this behavior at all-- he was an outed lawyer-- and he lost his job over this. This smacks of opportunistic target-seeking.

On the other hand, posters like Pauliewalnuts, lonelyvirgin, and :D bordered on being sociopathic and I feel like those guys are getting what was coming to them. I also think there's an enormous difference between, for example, expressing desire to have sex with someone (locker-room banter) and making jokes about becoming forceful with that person, which most women would take as a threat.

"Do we have a right to be anonymous online?"

No. Not a right, especially when performing constitutionally-protected actions. I don't believe people should be required to identify themselves online, but I do believe that people who post anonymously should expect to be exposed eventually.

A better question would be whether legal channels should be used in the exposure of an anonymous person.

I believe so only if all other option are exhausted.

"Do the pros outweigh the cons?"

Yes, but only in place where free speech is not protected by the state.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com