Should there be an end to online anonymous free speech? In his essay “Douse the Online Flamers,” Andrew Keen states that it is difficult to understand how free speech is important to society.
He looks back to 1993 when the dawn of the online world promised intellectual freedom however, it has produced the contrary; anonymous hateful speech. He refers to several cases where anonymous hateful comments were extremely harmful to the victims and in one case it caused a teenager’s death.Due to the actions of these anonymous “sadists,” as Keen refers to the anonymous; he believes the Supreme Court should rethink the civic value of anonymous free speech. However, free speech is a vital right of our country, it has endured through the toughest of times and calling for its end is not the answer. We as users of the internet should be cautious of our interactions in the online world, overlook and avoid the attack of the anonymous and cherish our right to free speech given that other countries are not afforded this right.
It is doubtful that every piece of legislation enacted by our government can replace vigilant parents.Keen points out the unfortunate case of a thirteen-year old girl, Megan Meier, who committed suicide, due to online bullying by a fabricated persona, whom turned out to be her forty-seven year old neighbor, Lori Drew, the mother of girl with whom Megan had argued. Drew was not charged for the murder because it wasn’t illegal (69). Drew should be held accountable and penalized for her vicious attack on Megan but, where were Megan’s parents while this online harassment escalated into her death. The parents carry the ultimate responsibility of monitoring their children’s internet use.
Perhaps there should be more discussion between parents and their children as to what is right and wrong in the online world. With the appropriate guidance, children can avoid situations that can be potentially dangerous. It is saddening that Meier had to go through such cruelty and her bully remains free. There should be specific laws put in place to punish such actions that lead to someone’s death. It is unfortunate that some users in the online world partake in the pleasure in attacking others anonymously.
They cruelly offend with obscenities, pettiness and immaturity.People have a moral responsibility to conduct themselves in a civilized matter but, sadly it is impossible to have everyone at every second of the day to do so. Yet, we as an online community should not allow ourselves to take these comments to a personal level. Why acknowledge such hatred when it is much healthier to condone their remarks and not give them the satisfaction of exchanging words. On most websites, you can report the inappropriate content and have hateful comments taken down. Keen’s one-sided view states that “it is really hard to understand how anonymous speech is vital to a free society” (70).
However, in the end it is just the opinions of others, no matter how nicely or hurtfully put and our right to voice our opinions is protected under the First Amendment. This is not cause for grounds to end online free speech. Keen also notes “McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission a ruling focusing on anonymous “political speech”. Wherein, Justice John Paul Stevens’ opinion for the court cited the example of Federalist Papers, originally published under pseudonyms, as proof that anonymity represents a “shield from the tyranny of the majority” and is, therefore, vital to a free society” (69).Within the past year civil wars were fought and won in Libya and Egypt for greater freedoms.
Their governments strictly controlled the internet and prohibited their citizens from publicizing any news that could harm their countries image. Some of their citizens did post about their country under anonymity since the punishment for not abiding theses laws included life imprisonment and large fines. Is this what Keen intends for our country with his call for an end to free speech online, without our First Amendment rights the McIntyre v.Ohio Elections Commission’s ruling would not apply.
We would become a nation terrified of our government’s potential response to online criticism. How is this wise for our rights and our country? In conclusion, free speech is a right guaranteed by the Constitution and is vital to our society. Keen’s views are solely one-sided and his call to the end of online anonymous speech is foolish. It is undeniable that there is a lack of specific laws that should target the online attackers.These laws need to be created and enacted to begin to hold them accountable for their actions that cause others to end in tragedy, as in the case of Megan Meier. While there might never be an end to the online harassment, sometimes it is better to be the bigger person and ignore hurtful comments.
Why fuel the maliciousness? Free speech is an important part of the world in which we live and calling an end to it, is not a solution. Works Cited Keen, Andrew. "Douse the Online Flamers. " Current Issues and Enduring Questions, 9th ed.
Ed. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. New York: Bedford St. Martin's, 2011: 68-70.
