Re: more ideas on anonymity

In message <9302282156.AA25135@SOS> you write:
>    Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 23:59:30 GMT
>    From: Tony Kidson <tony@morgan.demon.co.uk>
>
> I see.  So you don't believe in libel or slander laws.

It's people believing and acting on the words that actually 
causes the damage.  I believe that you must judge the reputation 
of the subject and issuer of any statement before you make up 
your mind to act on a statement.  It is only possible to widely 
disseminate a libel if you have control of the means of 
dissemination.  That, is not free speech. Where is the 
opportunity for contrary assertion by the person libelled?

> And NBC was perfectly justified in faking an explosion in a GM truck to
> show it was unsafe, and broadcast it on prime-time TV.  And it didn't do
> anybody any harm at all.  Uh huh.

Faking the explosion, was neither here or there.  Did they deny 
GM the right of denial. Could they be sued by the people that 
they misled?  I do believe in their right to say anything they 
like. They have a reputation to protect.  How much reputation has 
an anonymous source?  Are you going to believe an anonymous tip 
off until you have investigated it?  If so bigger fool you.

Tony

+-----------------+-------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Tony Kidson     |    PGP 2.1 Key by request     | Voice +44 81 466 5127    |
| Morgan Towers,  |                               | E-Mail                   |
| Morgan Road,    |         This Space            | tony@morgan.demon.co.uk  |
| Bromley,        |          to Rent              | tny@cix.compulink.co.uk  |
| England BR1 3QE |Honda ST1100  ==*==  DoD# 0801 | 100024.301@compuserve.com|
+-----------------+-------------------------------+----------------------------+

>I do believe in their right to say anything they 
>like. They have a reputation to protect.  How much reputation has 
>an anonymous source?  Are you going to believe an anonymous tip 
>off until you have investigated it?  If so bigger fool you.

"How much reputation has an anonymous source?"

I think this might be key to solving the "anonymous libel" problem.
Simply declare "anonymous libel" an oxymoron!  We might argue that
otherwise libelous statements, when made anonymously, carry a
presumption of falsity, for otherwise the speaker would be willing to
speak truthfully in his or her own person.

Or, in other words, "Coward! He must be lying!"

Could some of the folks with LEXIS or WESTLAW access check and see if
there is any case law where the social status of the speaker is
brought into question?

Perhaps Tony Kidson could tell us some of the effects of libel law in
the UK.  The US law, which grew out of British law, seems to have gone
in the direction of reducing the power of a libel complaint, while
British law has done the opposite.  I can't speak for the UK, but
those who live there could.

In California, a very promising decision occurred last week: the first
test of the anti-SLAPP law (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public
Participation).  The law is to prevent lawsuits designed to drain the
resources of those exercising their First Amendment rights.  It
requires the plaintiff to show that they will probably win (I don't
know what the wording of the actual test is).  Defendants are entitled
to recover attorney's fees and court costs.

The suit was basically as follows.  One comic book company published a
Lensman comic.  The heir to the Lensman rights stated in print that
this company had not received permission.  The comic book company sued
the heir and the publisher of her words, claiming libel.  The case was
immediately dismissed based on the new anti-SLAPP law.

The law is designed to protect First Amendment rights, but it looks
like it will also have the salutatory effect of reducing libel claims
generally.

Eric

"How much reputation has an anonymous source?"

	 I think this might be key to solving the "anonymous libel" problem.
	 Simply declare "anonymous libel" an oxymoron!  We might argue that
	 otherwise libelous statements, when made anonymously, carry a
	 presumption of falsity, for otherwise the speaker would be willing to
	 speak truthfully in his or her own person.

	 Or, in other words, "Coward! He must be lying!"

The perspective you propose is an easy way of orienting people towards
positive reputations.  If people consider an unestablished anonymous
source as similar to a drunk on the street staggerring up to them,
then sources start out with little positive reputation.

For some things, anonymity is sufficiently valuable that its use
doesn't discredit the source: crime tip-offs, inside corruption
revealing, etc.  In many of those cases, however, the source would
need to establish their validity, which ties them back into the
positive reputation game: an insider could reveal information that
proves their inside knowledge, an informer could establish a long-term
anonymous reputation, etc.  In the case of the informer, police might
still respond to random tips, but not with the same alacrity (yeah
right) with which they respond to tips from established informers.

dean

>For some things, anonymity is sufficiently valuable that its use
>doesn't discredit the source: crime tip-offs, inside corruption
>revealing, etc.  In many of those cases, however, the source would
>need to establish their validity, 

"Externally verifiable" is the key phrase here.  An anonymous
allegation that Bush and Barb do unspeakable things their bedroom is
much harder to verify than the location of Jimmy Hoffa's bones.

The weekly posting for alt.whistleblower will contain an exhortation
to include such information as can be verified without requiring the
accused party to admit to something.

Eric

I heard today that the Federal Public Health Service has been trying
to eliminate anonymous AIDS testing, but it's unlikely to disappear,
at least in San Francisco.  (The PHS claims to want peoples'
identities so PHS can tell their sex partners that they're at risk.
Though I haven't figured out how PHS plans to find out who's having
sex with who.)

It occurred to me that truly anonymous postings to online discussions
about AIDS would allow people who have AIDS to discuss the changes it
puts them through, without letting them be discriminated against by
having their identities revealed.

A video I saw about AIDS testing mentioned that if you get a positive
result, you should be careful about who you tell, because there are
still many unenlightened employers, landlords, insurance companies, etc.

	John