Filed under: Community Building
Anonymity is a blessing and a curse to online communities. Anonymous posting allows individuals to discuss sensitive topics, from personal health issues to politics, without exposing their identity. On the other hand, anonymity empowers some individuals to make false, harassing, or even threatening statements with impunity.
Cybersoc.com discusses this issue in online anonymity - threat or under threat? in relation to a law enforcement forum court case. In Sheriff gets win against Web site, the St. Petersburg Times reports that a judge is forcing Leoaffars.com, a group of discussion forums geared to local law enforcement, to disclose the identities of anonymous posters. These individuals apparently made disparaging remarks about the department or people working there.
This strikes me as a slippery slope. While I can understand and agree with an employer disciplining employees who publicly violate their employment agreement, forcing an independent forum operator to indentify members (who may not even be employees of the affected government unit) is a real stretch. These members aren’t making threats or discussing illegal activities, which I think would be solid ground for disclosure. Rather, they are expressing opinions and discussing employment issues, hardly an imminent threat to health or safety.
This decision looks like yet another in a long line of court decisions made by judges who aren’t themselves cyber-savvy but have been forced to decide online issues.
Add this post to: del.icio.us - Digg it - Stumble it - Furl - Yahoo MyWeb No Comments so far
Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>