Sources and citations in academic research

Defamation & Anonymity

The world of communications, both online and print, needs major over hauls in laws and teaching society to respect each other. Internet communications should be awarded the same protection, rights, and consequences as communications in print media. News organizations should not be singled out where anonymity is concerned. Printers are required to protect anonymity except if they are a news organization. It would be much easier for society if everyone had to follow the same rules, with a few exceptions of reprisal or embarrassment.

Some feel that anonymous posters should have the same protection as a journalist's confidential sources. Confidential sources are not anonymous (Wasserman). The journalist knows who the source is and is required to evaluate the creditability of the information and the vulnerability of the source. The reporter shield laws express trust in the reporter's expertise of evaluating the value and creditability of the information and protecting vulnerable sources.

If anonymous posters are awarded the same rights, would it not be inviting infestations of problems with defamatory comments? Feeding a rat human food invites them to stay. And, rats are like people in respect where they invite their friends. Sooner or later, infestation of rats will occur and take over the territory. The same goes with defamatory comments posted on the internet. If rules are not enforced, infestation problems will occur.

Matters are made worse when companies trying to enforce the rules are criticized when outing members who use defamatory comments. Or, when courts uphold the first amendment rights in internet situations where defamatory comments are made. It leads to people making defamatory comments and feeling justified, when in reality, it creates bigger problems of verbal abuse on the internet.

"True anonymous speech has a revered place in U.S. traditions" (Wasserman). Reasons for anonymity include fear of reprisal or embarrassment, or even, the need for independence in ideas without repercussion from others with different views and positions that can harm the poster. For example, if someone who wishes to voice their view, but fears repercussion from an employer with a different viewpoint or from someone who can punish someone close to the poster, such as their spouse or a family member.

Where print sources require real names, in cyberspace some form of anonymity or identifiability is desired (Yelvington). Accountability and privacy are both reasons for using pseudonyms, or usernames, instead of real names. The issue is whether the pseudonyms are tied to real identities where abusers can be identified when problems occur. Some websites only require users to have a username and password with no real identity being tied to it. When problems come up, such as defamatory comments being made against other users, etc., there is no way to identify the poster except through the username. If the poster is banned from the site, there is nothing to stop them from creating other usernames to continue their actions.

The Miami Herald's website allows users to comment on news stories to obtain valuable information from public input (Marques Gonzalez, 2013). The Miami Herald had complaints from users about defamatory comments of some users where there was name calling, among other defamatory comments, that was causing users with a rational voice to shy away from posting their viewpoints. Since the Herald did not tie usernames to any kind of identity, the Herald changed their commenting policy to require users to login through Facebook. Facebook accounts are tied to identity of the users. This was efforts to create a form of tie to the usernames to identify posters of defamatory comments in efforts of attempting to resolve the issues. The goals with the efforts include creating a safe place of interaction and obtaining higher quality comments, even though the efforts would probably produce a smaller amount of comments from the public.

Companies have the right to enforce rules of civil engagement. Even though it is difficult to monitor all posts that are made on a web site due to high volume of comments, limited staff, and the amount of aliases that can be formed, companies could use measures that are adequate to prevent and do away with defamatory comments being made on their web sites. Creating a whistleblower button where users can report abuses without repercussion is one way. The creation of usernames tied to identity is another one provided that actions are taken to provide appropriate consequences to those who violate the rules.