Last week Judge Joan Madden ordered Google to identify the anonymous blogger whose site, “Skanks in NYC,” hosted by a Google subsidiary and now removed, slammed the fashion model Liskula Cohen. Madden found the blogger’s writing, including the assertion that Cohen is a “psychotic, lying, whoring … skank,” to be “reasonably susceptible to a defamatory connotation.” That is, Cohen has the basis for a lawsuit and is entitled to know the identity of the blogger in order to seek legal redress. Google complied, identifying the blogger to Cohen’s lawyer. Has anonymous posting, though generally protected by law, become so toxic that it should be discouraged?
The Argument
It has. To promote the social good of lively conversation and the exchange of ideas, transparency should be the default mode. And that goes both for lofty political discourse and casual comments on Amazon. “Says who?” is not a trivial question. It deepens the reader’s understanding to know who is speaking, from what perspective, with what (nutty?) history, and with what personal stake in the matter. It encourages civility and integrity in the writer to stand behind her words. There are times when anonymous posting is necessary, when disclosure is apt to bring harsh retribution — I’ll come to that — but more often, anonymous posting sustains a culture, or at least a hideous subculture, of calumny and malice so caustic as to inhibit the very discourse the Web can so admirably enable. Writers should not do it, and Web site hosts should not allow it.
read more
