I just read this comment by Paul Harris of the Observer (UK)and just about fell off my chair..

It is one of the most irritating and ubiquitous annoyances of the internet age: the anonymous commenter. Hiding behind a made-up moniker, anonymous commenters surface on virtually every blog or news website, posting bile, insults, prejudice and ignorance, often for the sheer hell of it.

In the free for all that has so far marked internet-based publishing, there seems to be no recourse for those targeted by the so-called “trolls”. Certainly not of the sort they would have if such comments were published in hard copy on the letters pages of old media newspapers and magazines, where the threat of libel has kept up standards. But, perhaps, no longer.

A law suit filed last week in New York has threatened to hold some of the internet’s more unpleasant denizens to account: a rare example of old media rules starting to be applied online.

The heroine of the tale is Carla Franklin, a former model and graduate of Columbia Business School. She is taking Google to court over anonymous comments that called her a “whore” on the firm’s YouTube website. She is seeking a court order to force Google to identify the person behind the insult. According to her lawyer, Franklin already suspects a certain individual of posting the comments, but needs concrete confirmation before she can go after them in a court of law. She is claiming the insult, which was posted several times by the same YouTube user, was “… made with the intention to harm Ms Franklin’s reputation and interfere with her relationships, employment and livelihood”.

It is hard not to cheer Franklin’s cause. Anonymous commenters claim that the cloak of secrecy allows greater frankness and honesty and means whistleblowers and others perhaps hampered by their jobs can post things online with greater safety. But in reality it is all too often just a handy excuse to be rude, juvenile or racist. Franklin is also riding a growing wave against anonymity online. Several American news websites, including the Buffalo News newspaper, have recently forced commenters to use their real names when posting their opinions on stories

After a few idiots posted supportting comments, raising my hair even more a breath of fresh air revived me

SergioBlumenfeld

22 August 2010 5:29AM

……….I chose to post this comment under my real name; otherwise Paul Harris (and others like him) would imagine that they can automatically dismiss it as some “ignorant troll”‘s annoying blabbering.

This article is beyond bad, it’s outrageous. The author believes he can lump together all the anonymous commenters on all subjects on the Web, be equally derogatory of all of them, and then proceed to recommend an end to publishing any anonymous comments. You are so wrong in your pompous arrogance, Mr. Harris!

Having read huge numbers of comments on a wide variety of subjects, I can tell that you find a whole gamut of them – ranging from juvenile inanities and nonsensical rudeness, to many intelligent and well-informed comments. It’s not so hard to tell which ones come from a silly and ignorant kid having great fun with his computer keyboard, and which ones come from serious people, many of them with academic degrees. Hey, I’m not prejudiced, many good comments come from smart people without college degrees, but with plenty of common sense.

As a matter of fact, it’s a rather common occurrence to find several comments on an article which are more intelligent than the article they criticize. An example: this article. I don’t need to know the real names of Volucre, anon102, ashiraz, stenchofpc, etc. (and I apologize to other good commenters whose monikers I left out) to tell that they are making better points than Mr. Harris. Just the fact of signing your name doesn’t add any value to your writing, Paul H.

People’s ability to publish their thoughts under a chosen moniker is a huge asset of the Internet age, it is a huge enhancement of people’s freedom of speech. It allows people to feel free and safe to make an honest statement of their real thoughts. Particularly in these days of political correctness gone to endless extremes, taking control of much of the media, and not tolerating dissent, publishing under a moniker is a shelter and a refuge for free speech. Professional journalists are mercenaries, trading their freedom of speech for a good salary – paid to those who write what their publisher wants them to write. By contrast, the anonymous commenters care only about making a true statement of their thoughts and feelings, while getting no pay for their time and effort. As I explained above, the better among these comments provide a genuine enrichment of the sites publishing them – even though, inevitably, you have to make allowance for the publication of the lowly ones as well.

The strongest impression I’m left with from Harris’s article above is that he took an opportunity to vent out his frustration with the many critical comments that he and his colleagues had to endure countless times. Oh, if only we could have a strong-handed censorship, or at least, not allow publishing one’s opinions under pseudonyms!. Then, we’ll see a lot less unwanted criticism, and life will be easier for the mercenary journalist; then, he could sing happily the praises of Freedom of Speech – as long as it’s firmly kept under control!

Thank you for your attention,
Sergio Blumenfeld
Raleigh, NC (USA)