Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, brilliant political theorists and Founding Fathers. They wrote the "Federalist Papers" under the anonymous name, "Publius" so as to avoid professional, personal and political danger during the time of the Constitutional Convention. Their opponents, the "Anti-Federalists," also wrote anonymous critiques of the Constitution. This was common at the time...

As we get ready to celebrate July 4^th, let’s take time to remember one of the most important civil and political issues in the world today: Internet Anonymity.

With the rise of the Internet, an important new tool has been developed in man’s age-old struggle to fight the forces of tyranny and oppression.

People who have been kept in a perpetual state of political and economic ignorance are able to tap illuminating and enlightening resources like Google, Wikipedia and Amazon, acquiring information of a breadth and depth never before seen in the annals of human history. This threatens political, social and economic tyrants, Oligarchs who flourish by keeping subject populations in a constant state of ignorance, apathy, confusion and distraction.

People who have been kept isolated from each other, atomized and divided, either because of economically based time-constraints, such as those found in America, or due to suspicions about community, state or corporate surveillance, have been able to utilize tools like Facebook, Twitter and blogs from a multitude of sources in order to link-up, organize and share their common grievances.

Just as town-squares and common markets once facilitated the ability of people to peacefully assemble and air their grievances, the internet is doing the same thing in the modern era, albeit on a much larger scale.

The anonymous pamphleteer fueled the French and American Revolutions. Indeed, the Federalist Papers, consisting of highly radical arguments advocating the Constitution, were written anonymously, by Hamilton, Madison and Jay. And just as the protests of the prior era were facilitated by anonymous pamphleteers, writers and political agitators, so, too, are the protests of today and tomorrow similarly being influenced by their modern-day counterparts: the anonymous blogger and internet poster.

Let’s face the facts. The new technologies of the Internet and cell phone texting/email technology absolutely enabled the successful Jasmine Revolution in the Middle East, the ouster of Estrada in the Philippines in 2001, the Socialist victory in Spain in 2004, and the anti-communist victory in Moldova in 2009. Social media also played an absolutely crucial role in the failed, pro-democratic uprisings in Belarus in 2006, the 2009 Green Movement protests in Iran and the Red Shirt uprisings in Thailand in 2010. (“The Political Power of Social Media," Clay Shirky, Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb 2011).

Many things make or break a pro-democracy mass movement, on the right or left side of the political spectrum. But the fact remains that the Internet, cell phone texting, social media and the like are and will be the KEY TOOLS for such movements for the foreseeable future. They will be even more important, especially since we are in the middle of a great economic recession and countless people throughout the world are protesting and challenging the economic policies and actions of their government, for good or ill, such as that which we are currently seeing in Greece.

Social Media and the Internet will also be important for the masses in terms of WHISTLEBLOWING activity. It is quite well known, by anybody who is well read and possessing an ounce of common sense, that the vast majority of whistleblower protection laws in the United States (like those of witness protection laws in cities like Baltimore) lack sufficient teeth and that, the majority of the time, fail to live-up to their intended purpose. The result, more often than not, is that the whistleblower loses their job and also faces severe criminal and civil liabilities. So much for performing a sacred, selfless act of public service to the Republic…Internet anonymity assists whistleblowers, because it allows them to expose corporate and government wrongdoing and crimes, but in safety, without fear of retaliation.

Anonymity is also important in terms of safely discussing general consumer safety issues. Today, some of the most important consumer safety issues concern the quality of the food we eat and whether its safe for human consumption. These issues, first publicized by Upton Sinclair in his turn-of-the-century novel, "The Jungle," haven't gone away with all the recent advances in agricultural and animal husbandry technology. In fact, in many cases, they have gotten worse, with e-coli and mad cow disease increasing in frequency.

And yet, corporations are working their hardest to prevent common people from addressing these issues, and from educating their fellow citizens about the dangers posed by modern, mass produced, corporate-processed food. Here, countless corporations have been able to lobby Congress and various state legislatures to pass what are called “Food Libel Laws.” You might remember that Oprah Winfrey ran afoul of these when she criticized the U.S. cattle and livestock industry (for allegedly engaging in reckless and/or negligent behavior, such that they increased the chances for a Mad Cow disease outbreak).

If you utilize the television, or the internet to criticize a Food Business or Food Producer that is located in another state, you can run afoul of that state’s food libel laws, and be dragged into Federal Court (because you utilized an instrument of interstate commerce to engage in the tort) to defend yourself. These laws have a much lower standard of civil liability than normal torts (thanks to lobbyists) and you can be forced to pay the attorney fees of the Plaintiff food industry, even if you ultimately win your case. Here, anonymity is not only a good idea, but it can make a difference between solvency and bankruptcy, since countless corporations now unethically utilize our legal system as a forum for covert guerilla economic warfare against their critics, by way of SLAPP suits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP

Not only this, but also plain old-fashioned political discussion takes place on the internet, often by folks who work for major corporations. These discussions, most of the time, often have nothing at all to do with what these people work on, or what these companies work on. However, a large and increasing portion of Fortune-500 Companies are requiring their employees to sign agreements, in which they promise to not engage in blogging activities of any kind from the privacy of their own home. I think most people think its fine and reasonable for an employer to prohibit an employee from engaging in personal internet activities at work during work hours. Everybody I meet is in agreement about this. But companies have no right to tell you what you can do when you're not on the clock, when you're at home, after work or on the weekend. The town square is gone, so you can't have political discussions there. Its been replaced by the shopping mall, but these are owned by companies with non-soliciting and non-loitering laws, so you're going to be hard-pressed to have meaningful discussions there. You can't really talk in the public library, so cross that off your list. So the only option really left to alot of people, in terms of political discussion, is the internet. If employers are able to preclude employees from doing this, it chills speech. All the more reason to permit anonymous blogging.

Anonymity is also important in terms of online support groups. Countless people have stigmatizing mental illnesses, or diseases, like AIDS or STDs, as well as other conditions and they utilize the internet to reach-out to other human beings for a sense of community, support and companionship, because they feel isolated and alone, and without support where they live. Forcing them to post their real names and picture could not only ruin their privacy, but could expose them to a gamut of harassment in their real community and ruin their employment and family relationships.

Today, there are massive threats to online anonymity.

The first and most dangerous threat is posed by authoritarian governments, such as China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and others. They want to use the legal systems of their own, as well as that of developed, Western countries, so as to unmask and identify the names and addresses of people who seriously critique and/or challenge their regimes. Internet Service Providers are able, currently, to ascertain the address and location of various online users. They can be forced, by way of a subpoena, into giving this information up to a government.

The second leading threat in the world, but perhaps the leading threat in the West, is that posed by corporate efforts to stifle Internet anonymity. Corporations have much to lose from online whistleblower or consumer protection critiques, or by people who  allegedly violate the so-called “Food Libel Laws” mentioned above. In today’s world of minimal corporate regulation and oversight, as well as rampant corporate corruption, the need for holding companies accountable is more important than ever before. However, companies know that they have little to fear from the Federal and various state governments, thanks to campaign contributions and lobbyists. However, it’s much harder to bribe all the people in the world and prevent them from communicating and posting stuff to the Internet. As such, Companies have a strong interest in suing people who disparage them online and making examples of them. All the more reason for Internet anonymity.

A third leading threat comes from our fellow bloggers. Many bloggers fail to remember the warning of Harry Truman, “If you can’t take the heat, then get the hell out of the kitchen.” Many bloggers can’t take the vulgarity, abuse, criticism, debate, conflict or anarchy of the Internet. Many have thin skin. Many post personal information and find themselves bullied, which is unfortunate and sad. But this sort of thing has always existed in the town square: the threat of the anonymous heckler or graffiti artist. Even the walls of Pompeii are rife with scandalous writings and libelous comments made about many of its illustrious, and not so illustrious citizens. Perhaps the internet makes people more brave in saying what they would otherwise feel more reticent to say in public, where they could face major legal and/or employment-based ramifications. Perhaps anonymity makes people feel more free to be aggressive and nasty, more so than they would otherwise be in the more sanitized, authoritarian, commercialized and controlled outside world.

This is a good thing, I believe. The real world of politics and the workplace is far too controlling and polite and politically correct and nice. Everything these days is sanitized, sterile and controlled. This chills discourse, because those who “rock the boat” and protest are seen as “mean” and “not nice.” An authoritarian could easily ally with the “niceness police” and stifle dissent by calling civil rights protesters “uncivil” and “impolite.” Its been done before. In fact, the #1 tactic used against pro-democracy protesters throughout history has been to attack their personal hygiene and rudeness.

Many self-righteous internet hall-monitors feel that we should use our real names. I disagree, for the reasons I posted above. Many think we should use our real pictures. I disagree. Facebook has just invented a new facial recognition software technology, in case you haven’t heard. It is memorizing the biometric data of all the faces in its database and is automatically tagging the names of all the people in all the photos downloaded into its database. For example, if a guy from New York goes to a bachelor party in Las Vegas, and is accidentally captured in a photograph taken by somebody from Texas, who later posts this on their Facebook, Facebook will automatically tell this Texas guy who that strange person in the photo is. Facebook states that this technology will increase human bonds, networks and connections in a whole new way. But it also means that you can be automatically identified, online, at any political protest you have participated in. This scares the hell out of many folks in Iran and Saudi Arabia. If somebody is photographed near a gay club in the US, but they live in Yemen, where homosexuality is banned, having such a photo automatically tagged on Facebook, without their permission, could mean a death sentence. If somebody uses their real picture on Open Salon, but utilizes an anonymous avatar, all you need to do is save their photo, then download it into Facebook and utilize the face-recognition software and BAM---you can find out their real name. So much for anonymous blogging.

The government is absolutely banned from using this sort of technology and utilizing this sort of power. That we voluntarily give this sort of power and control to a corporation worries me immensely.

The “niceness crowd” on the Internet worries me immensely. Many of them, because they desire civility, may lead the charge for greater authoritarian control and regulation that could inadvertently have a chilling effect on the political and economic speech I mentioned above. Many of their arguments and positions could also be taken up by the same such authoritarians, as a means of garnering greater popular support for their cause: implementing greater control over the internet, eradicating anonymous blogs, Facebook and twitter accounts and the like.

I could very easily see the governments of Iran, China and Saudi Arabia advocate greater internet control under the guise or pretext of “politeness” and the need to “regulate rude and vulgar behavior online.” In fact, they want to chill speech and/or acquire the names and addresses of those who criticize their regimes. The same probably goes for the many corporations who want to stifle free speech online.

This doesn’t mean that if you are being harassed online that you have no legal recourse. You do. The Internet is a public forum like any other. And just like you can sue somebody for constantly harassing you and hurting you in a public park, you can do the same thing against somebody on the Internet. But it has to pertain to a pattern of behavior over a course of time. A few nasty comments don’t constitute “harassment.” And if it truly is harassment, you can easily subpoena the Internet Service Provider to provide information regarding the offending party. But harassment is one thing. A company or government SHOULDN’T be able to do the same thing.

And if they do, you should know what your rights are.

Go to www.chillingeffects.org for more information.

“Chilling Effects” is a joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law.

Again, the Internet, blogs, texting and social media will play a CRUCIAL part in the Global Progressive Movement to come. Weakening these tools, and increasing a government or corporation’s power to regulate and control them, as well as ascertain the names and identities of those engaged in political and economic discourse will have a chilling effect on free speech. We should oppose these measures, even if it means a higher degree of relative anarchy and unpleasantness in public forums.

Democracy is, by its very nature, messy.

I like it that way.

Have a Happy July 4th Weekend.

And remember---

This isn't just a weekend that celebrates American national identity. Its also a weekend that celebrates freedom and the triumph of liberty over tyranny and injustice. These principles are universal. The Founding Fathers would agree...